[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
            NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT OF 1994

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 440 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 440

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4385) to amend title 23, United States Code, 
     to designate the National Highway System, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and the 
     amendments made in order by this resolution and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Public Works and Transportation. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Public Works and Transportation now printed in 
     the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived. Except as otherwise provided in this resolution, 
     no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each amendment printed in the report may be 
     offered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a 
     Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as 
     specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the 
     Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     amendments printed in the report are waived. It shall be 
     in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on 
     Public Works and Transportation or a designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution or germane modifications of any such amendment. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall 
     be considered as read (except that modifications shall be 
     reported), shall be debatable for ten minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Public Works and 
     Transportation, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. 
     For the purpose of inclusion in such amendments en bloc, 
     an amendment printed in the form of a motion to strike may 
     be modified to the form of a germane perfecting amendment 
     to the text originally proposed to be stricken. All points 
     of order against such amendments en bloc are waived. The 
     original proponent of an amendment included in such 
     amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the 
     Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of 
     the amendments en bloc. At the conclusion of consideration 
     of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and 
     report the bill to the House with such amendments as may 
     have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of 
     the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto 
     to final passage without intervening motion except one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  1040

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Montgomery). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my good friend from Tennessee [Mr. 
Quillen], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 440 is the rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 4385, the National Highway System Designation Act 
of 1994. The resolution provides for 1 hour of general debate to be 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
  The rule makes in order the Public Works Committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an original bill for 
the purposes of amendment. The committee substitute will be considered 
as read and all points of order against the substitute are waived.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule makes in order only those amendments that are 
printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying this rule as well as 
certain en bloc amendments. The amendments are to be considered in the 
order specified in the report and all points of order are waived 
against the amendments. The rule further provides that the amendments 
are not subject to amendments, except as specified in the report, the 
amendments are considered as read, and are not subject to a demand for 
a division of the question.
  House Resolution 440 also authorizes the chairman of the Public Works 
and Transportation Committee, or his designee, to offer amendments en 
bloc consisting of amendments printed in the Rules Committee report and 
to offer germane modifications to any amendment. The rule provides that 
the amendments en bloc will be considered as read but that any germane 
modifications to the amendments will be reported to the House.
  The amendments en bloc are debatable for 10 minutes, are not subject 
to amendment, nor a demand for a division of the question and all 
points of order against the amendments en bloc are waived.
  The rule further provides that the original proponent of an amendment 
included in the en bloc may insert a statement in the Congressional 
Record. Finally, House Resolution 440 provides for one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, at the outset of the consideration of House Resolution 
440 I first want to publicly praise Chairman Mineta, ranking minority 
members, Mr. Shuster and Mr. Petri, as well as subcommittee Chairman 
Rahall for their fine efforts in bringing this bill to the House.
  As Members are well aware, an integrated and coordinated 
transportation system is critical to the well-being of our Nation's 
economic future. H.R. 4385 proposes such a system. First, the bill 
designates over 159,000 miles of roadways throughout the country as the 
National Highway System.
  This national highway system will serve as a catalyst in the creation 
of a national intermodal transportation system, a coordinated system 
that will ultimately consist of road and bridge infrastructure, 
railways, waterways, airports, and transit lines throughout the 
country.
  Second, in an attempt to address the ever changing transportation 
needs of the country, the bill authorizes a number of highway and 
transit projects that conform to the policy directives in the 
Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, more commonly 
known as ISTEA.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill makes technical and minor policy 
revisions to the 1991 ISTEA Act that are intended to insure that the 
American people realize a better return on their investment in the 
Nation's transportation system.
  Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, this bill is a reflection of a 
bipartisan compromise. Passage of House Resolution 440 will allow the 
House to begin consideration of this most important transportation 
bill. I urge my colleagues to support adoption of House Resolution 440 
and to pass the bill, H.R. 4385, the National Highway System 
Designation Act of 1994.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to include extraneous 
matter.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the Rules 
Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 
thoroughly described the provisions of this modified open rule making 
in order only certain amendments which were submitted to the Rules 
Committee prior to its consideration of this matter. I offered a motion 
in the Rules Committee to make this a completely open rule, but it was 
not allowed. Although an open rule would be preferable, I understand 
that all amendments that were submitted and not withdrawn have been 
made in order.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4385 designates the National Highway System as 
developed by the Department of Transportation pursuant to the 1991 
ISTEA bill. The bill also authorizes high priority transportation 
projects.
  I commend the hard-working members of the Public Works and 
Transportation Committee for their spirit of cooperation in bringing 
this bipartisan bill before us. Five years between highway 
authorizations is too long--disasters occur, necessities arise, 
priorities change. I am glad to see that the committee recognizes the 
need to bring forward an authorization bill more frequently. It avoids 
the need to authorize in appropriations bills, and it is the right way 
to do business.
  I know that I cut my teeth in the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation my first 2 years in the Congress. I have supported 
highway bills all the way down the line, and I support this bill, 
because it is a necessity for the future of our country to grow and 
grow and grow.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no objections to the adoption of this rule, 
although I was hoping for another ride and I support passage of the 
National Highway System Designation Act.
  I include the following statistics for the Record:

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           67      14         21       53         79 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through May 24, 1994.                                                         


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  A: VV (May 19, 1994).            
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   ................  100 (D-80; R-20)..........  A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).    
                                           1995.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System   16 (D-10; R-6)..  5 (D-5; R-0)..............  .................................
                                           Designation.                                                                                                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1050

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the outstanding 
gentleman and sportsman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, whenever Joe Moakley says something like 
that, that worries me, because at times he is known to get out of 
control around here. But I will let that one pass.
  Mr. Speaker, thank you for making my amendment in order. I want to 
commend the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, its chairman, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] the subcommittee chair, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the subcommittee ranking 
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] for a fine bill. I 
would like to talk briefly about this rule, which I support, and my 
amendment, and what has really developed and brought this amendment 
around.
  About 8 years ago, under former Chairman Jim Howard of this 
committee, I took a look at safety improvements in the highway bill, 
and they were 80-20 on the interstate. For example, if you continued to 
pave a road and the road surface was elevated somewhat, and the 
guardrail was worn out or had been hit and damaged or was missing and 
not replaced, the State would have to come up with 20 percent of the 
money on interstate to try to fix that guardrail. The States hard hit 
for money did not have the money, so they would turn the other way and 
hope the guardrail would not be a problem in the future, and go on with 
their repair needs or new construction needs and try to maximize the 
use of their 20 percent.
  In a hard fight, we were able to get Chairman Howard to accept my 
amendment that expanded section 120(D) and made certain highway safety 
improvements 100 percent funded under the trust fund. That meant that 
that State wanting to fix that guardrail now did not have to go into 
their own limited coffers, and they could have 100 percent money under 
that trust fund.
  So now we have guardrails, signs, lights, bridge impact attenuators, 
breakaway utility poles, a number of safety improvements, that are 100 
percent funded, which is saving lives. And I thank the gentleman from 
California, Chairman Mineta, for helping me under Chairman Rob Roe to 
get that language in and keep that language in, since that language was 
targeted to be phased out under a 90-10 scenario.
  Today I come back under a different circumstance. We have found there 
have been about 35,000 highway deaths nationally attributed to heavy 
commercial truck drivers coming down the pike, coming down the track, 
with these heavy loads. And of those, 600 of them have been attributed 
to truck drivers having fallen asleep. We do not know how many truck 
drivers have fallen asleep when they in fact were killed in those 
accidents. There is no way of proving it.
  So I wanted to thank the committee for putting an amendment in that 
calls for a study of what might be done to reduce the potential of 
heavy commercial vehicles coming steaming down with big loads on, where 
the driver may fall asleep, where maybe we have exits that are 30 miles 
apart, and that truck driver, trying to make a buck in this limited-
profit industry, says, ``Well, I will make it to that next exit. I will 
get that other 30 miles. I will get to that truck stop.'' And sometimes 
they just do not get there, and they kill mom and dad.
  So this rule allows for this amendment that calls for a study to work 
out methodology by which we could in fact eliminate some of the 
potential for those serious accidents. Hopefully next year we can come 
with a bill, with the help of the fine committee staff and Chairman 
Mineta's help, that could alleviate those deaths, and maybe we can save 
those lives.
  So I want to thank the gentleman from California, Chairman Mineta, 
and thank the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], and the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Rahall], for including this amendment, and thank the 
Committee on Rules for giving me a couple of minutes.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California, the Honorable Norm Mineta, the chairman of 
the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, who has worked so 
hard to bring this bill to the floor today.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the House Committee on Public 
Works and Transportation, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 
440, the rule on H.R. 4385, the ``National Highway System Designation 
Act of 1994''.
  First of all, I would like to commend the chairman, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], and all the members of the Rules 
Committee, for their excellent work in helping craft this rule which 
gives due consideration both to the busy floor schedule for this week 
and the need to have important policy issues brought before the full 
House.
  A number of amendments were requested, but by the time the Rules 
Committee met yesterday, all but five of those amendments were worked 
out in one way or another, and those five amendments are permitted by 
this rule.
  The rule therefore accommodates all remaining requests for amendments 
and yet does so in a manner which will allow for relatively expedited 
consideration of the NHS bill. That is particularly important given our 
schedule for this week.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule, which permits 
consideration of this important bill in an expeditious and equitable 
manner.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  (Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, simply to say I strongly 
support this rule. It is a fair rule, it is a bipartisan rule, given to 
a bipartisan bill. It has strong support. We have worked out all of our 
differences. I had submitted several amendments to the Committee on 
Rules, but it is not necessary that they be offered, and I informed the 
Committee on Rules of that. I hope we can move forward expeditiously on 
this historic piece of legislation.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 440 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 4385.

                              {time}  1158


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself in the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
4385) to amend title 23, United States Code, to designate the National 
Highway System, and for other purposes, with Mr. Fields of Louisiana in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today, the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
in a bipartisan fashion brings to the House floor H.R. 4385, the 
National Highway System Designation Act of 1994.
  The fundamental purpose of this legislation is to designate a new 
National Highway System.
  The system will be comprised of approximately 159,000 miles of 
interstate and defense highways, certain non-interstate principal 
arterial roads, high-priority corridors identified by the Congress, and 
routes which provide access to major intermodal facilities and defense 
installations.
  To put this mileage in perspective, it includes only 4 percent of the 
Nation's 3.9 million miles of public roads. However, it will carry over 
one-half of the Nation's road-borne commerce and long-distance travel.

                              {time}  1100

  Under the terms of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1991--commonly referred to as ISTEA--these routes will be 
eligible for about $3.6 billion per year in expenditures from the 
Highway Trust Fund for construction, rehabilitation, restoration, 
resurfacing, or reconstruction activities.
  However, at stake with this legislation is almost $6.6 billion a year 
because if the Congress does not designate the NHS by September 30, 
1995, a self-executing provision of ISTEA will cause all NHS and 
interstate maintenance funds to cease flowing to the States.
  For this reason, this is must-pass legislation.
  It should be noted that the establishment of the NHS transcends 
highway funding issues.
  What this initiative represents is a first-step toward viewing what 
could be termed the crown jewels of America's roads, highways, and 
bridges within the overall context of a surface transportation system, 
complete with intermodal connectors, that will move goods and people 
efficiently into the next century.
  Toward this goal, this legislation calls upon the Secretary of 
Transportation, in consultation with the States, metropolitan planning 
organizations, and interested parties, to devise and submit to the 
Congress a proposed National Transportation System.
  This bill also addresses specific transportation projects. While 
State and local planning processes continue to be the determining 
factors in the selection of which highway projects are constructed, 
this bill recognizes that no single process can be infallible.
  In certain instances it is possible that important transportation 
projects may not proceed due to a variety of factors.
  This program of projects included in this legislation were subjected 
to an exhaustive review to determine whether they embody the principles 
of ISTEA to renew our surface transportation programs by addressing the 
Nation's changing transportation needs.
  It is true that the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation received 
over 900 highway transit project requests totaling $32.4 billion.
  The committee, myself, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], 
full committee chairman, the ranking minority member, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the ranking minority member of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], we reviewed 
each and every one of these projects. We, along with the staff, did an 
exhausting review.
  Let me note that the quality of these project requests was extremely 
high.
  I think this is in part due to the fact that we put into place a 
process which emphasized local and State support and greater 
informational requirements.
  With that said, I would observe that we obviously could not authorize 
$32 billion worth of transportation projects.
  We had to make some extremely tough decisions.
  This bill contains three categories of project funding, Highway 
projects are provided for either through contract authority or an 
authorization for appropriation from general funds. Transit projects 
are provided for through the section 3 new start program.
  With respect to contract authority, Mr. Chairman, every dollar in 
contract authority proposed for a new or ongoing highway project is 
offset by a dollar we propose to rescind.
  We are playing a zero-sum game.
  Under the bill, about $526 million in contract authority from certain 
pre-ISTEA projects which are no longer valid, and from certain programs 
for which the full amount of contract authority provided is not being 
utilized, would be rescinded.
  This bill also contains $900 million worth of general fund 
authorizations broken down over a 3-fiscal-year period.
  What we are basically proposing to do is to provide the 
Appropriations Committee with a menu, if you will, of projects which 
they may fund, provided they do not exceed $300 million in a given 
fiscal year.
  We have chosen $300 million as this is pretty much the figure the 
Appropriations Committee has been using in the past.
  Finally, this bill contains about $622 worth of transit projects. 
This money is offset by the repeal of section 3 authority for two 
transit projects which no longer enjoy local support.
  Authorized through fiscal year 1997, ISTEA continues to serve as a 
catalyst in redirecting the Nation's surface transportation program to 
meet the challenges of the 1990's and the 21st century.
  As such, the NHS designating legislation does not propose to modify 
ISTEA's apportionment formulas or to significantly alter any of its 
core programs.
  However, as a result of oversight and legislative hearings, an 
identifiable need has arisen to correct certain aspects of the 
legislation in order to enhance its implementation by the Department of 
Transportation, the States, metropolitan planning organizations, and 
others in the transportation community.
  In this regard, the pending measure contains the text of H.R. 3276, 
legislation aimed at making technical, conforming, and minor policy 
revisions to ISTEA, which passed the House last year.
  Also as part of the process to improve ISTEA's implementation, 
several relatively minor new policy modifications are proposed.
  Included in the legislation are certain adjustments to section 1038 
of ISTEA, commonly referred to as the ``crumb rubber'' provision, in 
order to provide for more flexibility in its goal of recycling used 
tires.
  The bill also includes a number of revisions to the National 
Recreational Trails Act in order to provide a better balance between 
motorized and nonmotorized trail users and to establish a consistent 
funding basis for the program.
  Adjustments to the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program are 
also proposed in order to prevent a deterioration of air quality in 
areas which have recently reached attainment.
  The establishment of a National Highway System has also given rise to 
a debate over enhancing quality in the highway design and construction 
processes.
  In effect, a need to provide a better return to the public for their 
investment in the transportation system.
  In response, this measure includes value engineering and life-cycle 
cost analysis reviews, as well as a provision relating to warranties 
and guarantees.
  Mr. Chairman, as I conclude, I wish to commend the ranking minority 
member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], 
the ranking minority member of the full committee, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and finally, our distinguished chairman of 
the full committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  These gentlemen have worked very long and hard on this bill. We have 
worked under the very capable guidance of our national Secretary of 
Transportation, Federico Pena, for whom I highly commend in his 
submission of the National Highway System to Congress last December 
ahead of schedule, via his Highway Administrator, Rodney Slatter.
  A lot of work, a lot of dedicated work has gone into the development 
of this National Highway System, in close consultation with the States. 
And without their support, we would not be submitting this map here 
today.
  I conclude by commending these gentlemen as well as our excellent 
staff that have worked long hours, including weekends, to bring this 
legislation to the floor today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4385, the National 
Highway System Designation Act of 1994.
  This bill provides congressional approval of the 160,000 mile network 
of roads known as the National Highway System, or the NHS. The NHS will 
be this Nation's premier system of roads and will include the 
interstate and defense roads as well as other major roads which link 
our population and commercial centers, and provide access to other 
transportation facilities.
  Although the NHS includes only 4 percent of our Nation's public 
roads, the vast majority of our commercial and recreational travel will 
be carried on the NHS.
  By passing this legislation today, we are properly recognizing the 
importance of the NHS and we will ensure that funding will continue to 
be available for this critical network of roads.
  H.R. 4385 also contains several policy provisions which are 
relatively noncontroversial and which do not represent major new 
initiatives. Perhaps the one program which has generated the most 
discussion since ISTEA was passed in 1991 is the requirement that 
States use crumb rubber in a certain percentage of asphalt laid with 
Federal assistance.
  H.R. 4385 contains a compromise which will scale back the current 
program. The requirements are reduced, civil engineering can be used to 
meet one-half of the requirements, the program ends in 1997, and the 
penalties are reduced. This represents a good faith effort to reach a 
compromise on a difficult issue.
  Finally, H.R. 4385 provides for the authorization of various highway 
and transit projects. During consideration of the transportation 
appropriations bill last year, we received a strong message that 
Members wanted an opportunity to seek authorization for projects prior 
to the 1997 reauthorization of ISTEA. And we have tried to do this in 
the most responsible way possible.
  All Members requesting projects had to submit detailed information on 
the project requested and 3 days of extensive hearings were held by the 
Surface Transportation Subcommittee. The Committee had to make very 
difficult decisions as we were faced with pairing down nearly $33 
billion in requests to a total of $2 billion in project authorizations 
in this bill. That is less than $1 provided for every $16 requested--or 
stated another way, only 6 percent of the requests were funded.
  For every project funded out of the Highway Trust Fund, we have 
rescinded an equal amount of contract authority--a total of $528 
million--from old projects where funding is no longer required and from 
programs where the funds are not being obligated. We have repealed $622 
million in transit authorizations to offset the new transit funding 
authorized in this bill. Finally, the general fund authorizations 
provided for highway projects over the 3 years are in line with the 
amount of funding provided in previous appropriations bills. I believe 
the committee has been very careful and responsible in authorzing these 
various projects.
  I would also note that incorporated into this bill are the technical 
corrections to ISTEA which were passed by the House last year.
  Let me conclude by commending Chairman Rahall, who presided over the 
many hours of hearings we held on this bill, as well as Chairman Mineta 
and our ranking Republican member Bud Shuster, for their efforts and 
hard work which were essential in bringing this bill to the Floor 
today.

                              {time}  1110

  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to support this very important bill, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Mineta), the chairman of our full 
committee.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4385, the 
National Highway System Designation Act of 1994.
  First of all, I would like to commend the subcommittee chairman, Mr. 
Rahall, and the ranking members, Mr. Shuster and Mr. Petri, for their 
excellent work in helping craft this bill. All recognized the 
importance of this legislation and all worked hard to avoid the kind of 
controversies which could impede its progress, even where that meant 
accepting policy compromises which were contrary to each of their 
positions, but which were necessary to move the bill forward. These 
Members are to be commended for the statesmanship they brought to this 
effort, and this bipartisan bill is a testament to that.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4385 accomplishes several important purposes.
  First, it approves the National Highway System map prepared by the 
Department of Transportation pursuant to ISTEA. In ISTEA we began the 
process of redefining for the postinterstate era which highways are of 
sufficient national interest to warrant Federal involvement. This bill 
designating the NHS would complete that process. We all recognize that 
Secretary Federico Pena of the Department of Transportation with the 
advice and counsel of the Federal Highway Administration and its able 
administrator, Rodney Slater, have done an outstanding job of putting 
the NHS map together, and we are approving their map as is.
  Second, the bill shifts funds which are not now producing benefits 
for the public to high-priority projects which will directly benefit 
people. Specifically, this bill rescinds about $525 million in contract 
authority funding, which for one reason or another is not producing 
much benefit, and shifts it to high priority highway and intermodal 
needs all across the country. Similarly, the bill repeals $622 million 
in section 3 transit projects which are not able to move forward and 
replaces those projects with an equal amount of projects which are in a 
position to move forward and benefit the public. The amount of total 
funding which would be available for transit projects would remain 
unchanged.
  Third, this bill completes the effort we began last year to try to 
bring accountability and openness in contract to the process which had 
existed for many years around here. Our task was to improve the 
process.
  In this bill we authorize $300 million per year for 3 years in 
highway and intermodal projects. In order for these projects to 
actually receive funding, they would have to be subsequently 
appropriated. By carefully screening these projects, by putting them 
out in public in the authorization process, and by allowing only these 
previously evaluated projects to subsequently be appropriated, we are 
improving the openness and public accountability surrounding Federal 
infrastructure investment decisions.
  I want to emphasize that all the projects in this bill, whichever 
type of funding they may receive, have gone through a rigorous process, 
including response to 18 detailed questions and the opportunity for 
input from State or local government. The days of casually tossing a 
project into a bill are over.
  I also want to emphasize that the net cost of this bill is zero. It 
will not increase Federal spending and it will not increase the Federal 
deficit. It rescinds as much contract authority as it authorizes. It 
rescinds as much in section 3 transit projects as it adds. And it 
authorizes for appropriations only as much as appropriations has 
typically done within the amounts made available for highway and 
related programs. This, in short, is a zero sum game. We have shifted 
funds to where they will be more productive; we have not increased 
funding.
  That has imposed a rigorous discipline on us as we struggled to 
remain within the amounts available. It is a testament to our new 
screening process that in most cases projects which were not of high 
quality were not even requested. It is also a testament to the enormous 
backlog of infrastructure needs in this country that so many high 
quality projects will remain unfunded in the next few years.
  And finally, given the importance of this bill, we have all tried to 
avoid major policy controversies and any fundamental rewrite of ISTEA. 
This bill is the midpoint in the life of ISTEA, and is intended to 
carry us through to the end of ISTEA in fiscal year 1997. The question 
of where we should depart from the ISTEA model is properly reserved for 
a couple of years hence, when we have more experience with the ISTEA 
approach. In this bill we have sought to deal only with technical 
corrections and the secondary policy issues, and only when a 
noncontroversial solution, or at least a reasonable compromise, could 
be struck.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4385 is urgently needed to designate the National 
Highway System and to address other transportation needs midway through 
ISTEA. I urge support for this important measure.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Altoona, PA, and environs [Mr. Shuster], the senior 
member on the Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
  (Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this is a historic moment for this House. 
The Members of Congress here today are going to be able to tell their 
children and their grandchildren that they were here and that they 
supported the creation of the National Highway System, which is going 
to be for the 21st century what the Interstate System was for our 
country in the 20th century.
  Indeed, as a result of the National Highway System we will be 
approving here today, we will be creating close to 160,000 miles of 
critical, modern highway for the future of our country, highways on 
which lives will be saved, the traveling public's convenience will be 
substantially improved, jobs will be created, productivity will be 
enhanced.
  Indeed, there are few programs which this Congress can pass which 
will do more for more Americans than this legislation which we are 
passing here today.
  Mr. Chairman, this map shows what that national highway system will 
be. Indeed, while the highways on the system represent only 4 percent 
of the highways in America, they will handle fully 40 percent of all 
the travel on our highways.

                              {time}  1120

  They will handle 75 percent of the truck traffic on our highways, 80 
percent of the tourism travel on our highways and indeed as we have 
experienced in the past, so we will continue to experience in the 
future about a 3-percent annual increase in travel on our highways. If 
we compound that annually, we can see we are looking as we move into 
the next century at a 30-, 40-, 50-percent increase on our highways, 
which means the passage of this legislation is absolutely critical.
  Mr. Chairman, so many people deserve great credit for our being in 
this position today: Chairman Mineta, Chairman Rahall, Congressman 
Petri, the ranking member of the subcommittee; and, yes, Rodney Slater, 
head of the Federal Highway Administration, Secretary Pena, and 
virtually every head of every State transportation department across 
America, because they are the ones who recommended which highways 
should be included on the National Highway System. They are the ones 
who sent it to the Federal Highway Administration on time. In fact, 
there is a second historic event taking place, I think, Mr. Chairman, 
and, that is, as long as I can remember for the first time in history, 
an administration actually sent their recommendations to the Congress 
ahead of schedule. Mr. Slater and Secretary Pena deserve great credit 
for moving promptly on this extremely important legislation.
  I would like to say particularly, Mr. Chairman, to my Republican 
colleagues that we in the minority have been full partners in this 
process. This is bipartisanship at its very best. When it came time to 
negotiate on the projects and looking and vetting the projects while we 
had such little money for projects, the Republicans got their full and 
fair share. We were full partners at the table, and I think it is 
important for us to recognize that.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate the point the gentleman just made. 
The leadership the gentleman in the well has exhibited on this bill and 
in this process cannot be overstated as well as the work, of course, of 
the chairman of the full committee and the subcommittee and the ranking 
member, Mr. Petri, of the subcommittee. I want to express the 
sentiments and thanks of a lot of the Members of this body on both 
sides of the aisle for the great amount of work and cooperation that 
the gentleman has exhibited along with the others I have mentioned.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, the final two points I would like to make, first of 
all, there are compromises in this legislation. I would like to have 
seen us go further on issues such as crumb rubber and other issues but 
we negotiated in good faith, we have compromises, and so we come 
together on this floor today standing together, urging support for this 
legislation.
  The last point I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is it cannot be 
emphasized too often that the money we are talking about here is trust 
fund money, out of the highway trust fund. The money that does get 
spent is money that comes from the highway portion of the trust fund 
and the transit portion of the trust fund. Therefore, this money is 
there, it does not contribute to the general fund deficit, it is the 
fairest kind of funding we can have, and I think we can be very proud, 
Republicans and Democrats alike, as we go back home that these are the 
dollars that are used to build assets for America. This is the way we 
should be spending our taxpayer dollars.
  I would urge all of my colleagues to strongly support this historic 
legislation today.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], a very fine member of our full Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation.
  (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support 
for H.R. 4385. Designating the National Highway System is the next step 
in the process that began with the enactment of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] in 1991. I commend Chairman 
Mineta, Chairman Rahall, and ranking members Shuster and Petri for 
taking the initiative to get this bill passed this year.
  ISTEA, and the NHS in particular, represent a step forward 
in transportation priorities in this country. Although the United 
States enjoys the benefits of an excellent Interstate Highway System, 
it was planned in the 1940's and 1950's. While using the Interstate 
System as a backbone, We must move beyond this vision of transportation 
to an era of enhanced intermodality and improved efficiency.

  The continued prosperity and growth of this Nation requires a strong 
intermodal transportation system. Our highway, waterway, rail and air 
systems all provide critical services that meet our growing 
transportation needs. The National Transportation System of the 
future--with the NHS as its base--will integrate the various modes of 
transportation to create a seamless transportation system to serve this 
Nation for decades to come.
  We need to work today to prepare our infrastructure for tomorrow. 
Passage of this bill will make it happen.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  (Mr. CLINGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the bill 
we have before us today.
  It is indeed an historic occasion because we are going to complete a 
process that was begun in 1991 with the passage of ISTEA which did call 
for the establishment of the national system of highways to meet 
America's transportation needs well into the next century.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are doing here today is really going to set 
highway policy for decades to come and well into the next century. As 
has been indicated, the National Highway System is a cooperative 
effort. In encompasses 159,000 miles of highways throughout the United 
States. Each State was solicited on the routes it wanted included in 
the system. This is not something that is being imposed from the top 
down. In fact, it was a perfect example of federalism at its best, 
where the routes to be included in this system were generated by the 
States themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Highway System is going to be an 
interconnected system of interstate highways, strategic defense routes, 
principal arterials, and high-priority corridors linking major 
population centers, major border crossings, ports, airports, intermodal 
and public transportation facilities, and defense installations. It is 
without doubt the most ambitious, most aggressive attempt to create a 
true intermodal system of transportation in the world. There is a 
certain urgency to the need for this exercise to take place. Our 
ability to transport our goods and services is going to determine how 
competitive we are going to be in the world into the next century. 
Frankly, some of the European nations are ahead of us in terms of 
building intermodal systems. We need to catch up and not only catch up 
but go beyond. This proposal will carry us well beyond anything that 
our competitors are doing at the present time.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Highway System is going to comprise only 
about 4 percent of the Nation's most important highways, yet it is 
going to carry 40 percent of the national highway traffic and 75 
percent of the Nation's truck traffic.
  This system as has been indicated is not financed through the general 
fund. It comes out of the highway trust fund, out of a Federal excise 
tax on gasoline, and money is collected for this purpose and cannot be 
used for any other purposes. It is vital that we use it for that 
purpose. Equally important, this money is going to be used to upgrade 
existing routes rather than build new highways. The proposed National 
Highway System route plan contains less than 2 percent of new roads.
  Mr. Chairman, we know that we are going to hear comments in the 
future about this being another pork-barrel bill, because that is what 
we always hear whenever the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation brings out legislation, that everything we do is deemed 
to be pork. I would suggest to Members that these criticisms come from 
those who would prefer not to see any highway construction go on in 
this country at all and, in fact, would prefer to see highways 
dismantled because they feel so strongly that automobiles and trucks 
are environmental hazards. But this system, Mr. Chairman, is going to 
do something vitally important, it is going to give us an integrated 
transportation network to carry us into the future.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Highway System is essential to ensuring 
the efficient movement of goods, services, and persons throughout our 
Nation and will be a basic building block toward maintaining America's 
competitiveness into the next century. I urge support for the 
legislation.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], a very determined and excellent member of 
our Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, if everybody looks at that map, when 
Hands Across America literally was joined, it was formed in my 
district. Smack dab in the middle between Cleveland and Pittsburgh, New 
York and Chicago are three highways that dead-end in the city of 
Youngstown. Columbus and Washington have forgotten my district. Enough 
is enough.

                              {time}  1130

  I want to thank you for at least starting with the Hubbard Expressway 
connector to involve my district with the rest of America, because if 
you travel through this country you would have to go through my 
district. I want to thank this committee. But I also want to say that 
we have great manufacturing, great service opportunities. I will get 
you a real good deal. The housing costs are one-half anywhere else. We 
have a great work force. The incentives are fantastic to make a profit. 
If you call me, America, I will get you a deal right in the heartland 
of America.
  I want to thank you again for the Hubbard Expressway. You will not 
have to get off and go on a side street in order to get to Route 80, I 
say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Surface Transportation 
Subcommittee will hold safety hearings in the near future. Is that 
correct?
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, yes, we will be holding comprehensive motor carrier 
safety hearings in the near future.
  Mr. SHUSTER. As you know, I considered offering three amendments to 
the bill today to deal with safety problems at rail-highway crossings. 
I deferred offering the amendments in large part because I thought that 
these issues should first be addressed in hearings. Would it be 
appropriate to address these issues in our upcoming safety hearings?
  Mr. RAHALL. Yes, it would be appropriate and I, too, believe these 
issues should be fully aired at hearings.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our colleague, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
  Mr. LAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my friend, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that section 111(a)(13) of this bill 
rescinds $3.559 million for a highway project in my district that was 
authorized in the 1987 highway bill. I have recently been made aware 
that this project is still viable and will go forward and be built. I 
decided not to offer an amendment to strike the rescission since the 
bill is deficit neutral and my amendment would have violated pay-as-
you-go rules.
  My question is: If New York State is able to begin the project and 
obligate the funds before this bill is enacted into law, will the funds 
be available to finish the project?
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. PETRI. Yes. If the project is viable, it can go forward in that 
time frame, and then it could obligate funds.
  Mr. LAZIO. I want to make the gentleman aware that traffic congestion 
in my district is a very serious problem, and I would like to work with 
the committee in the future to identify solutions to these problems. I 
thank the gentleman.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, if I may.
  I would like to first thank the gentleman and the committee for its 
support of the central Florida Interstate 4, GreeneWay interchange 
project. This project is a critical link in the Great Orlando 
transportation network.
  During the last decade, traffic on 14 through the Orlando region has 
increased at an average of 6 percent per year. The traffic now exceeds 
160,000 vehicles per day, while the road was designed to carry 68,000 
vehicles per day.
  I have requested that the Florida Department of Transportation study 
the feasibility of using the shoulder lane of Interstate 4 as a travel 
lane.
  This study would provide an interim solution to our traffic problem 
while the I-4 master plan is developed and implemented.
  This interim solution is important to alleviating I-4 congestion in 
my own, Mr. McCollum's, and Ms. Brown's districts in central Florida. 
We all support seeking an interim solution. As part of the Record today 
would the committee support my efforts to arrive at an interim 
solution?
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. PETRI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee commends the gentleman for his efforts to 
ease congestion on I-4 in the Orlando area. The committee also urges 
the Department of Transportation to study the feasibility of the 
gentleman's proposed solution to the congestion in I-4 in central 
Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Again I thank the gentleman and the committee.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski].
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I wish to express my support for H.R. 4385, which approves the 
National Highway System proposed by the Secretary of Transportation.
  I congratulate the leadership of the Public Works and Transportation 
Committee, our chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], 
the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rahall].
  I also congratulate the ranking Republican member, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the ranking Republican on the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
  I especially congratulate the leadership on recognizing the need to 
begin the process of creating a national transportation system that 
will include the National Highway System.
  The provision in the bill directing the Secretary of Transportation 
to develop a national transportation system will start us on the path 
to creation of a truly intermodal transportation system.
  A national transportation system is a direct and logical continuation 
of the process we began in 1991 with ISTEA.
  In 1991, we decided that we could not compete in the global economy 
unless we took action to develop a unified national transportation 
system. H.R. 4385 will begin to make the vision of ISTEA a reality.
  It is absolutely essential that we begin to recognize that moving 
passengers and freight requires greatly improved intermodal connections 
between our highways and ports, airports, transit systems, and 
passenger terminals.
  I also congratulate the committee leadership for moving to extend the 
concept of intermodalism to the metropolitan and State planning 
processes. ISTEA made these planning processes an essential element of 
our transportation system and they should include all forms of 
transportation.
  I hope the administration and the Congress will continue to pursue 
these concepts of intermodalism and the national transportation system. 
We should also pursue the transportation applications of new and 
advanced technologies to create intelligent transportation systems.
  I am disappointed, however, that the committee has filed to address 
the serious problem of the structure of MPO's. In 1991, we gave MPO's 
vast new planning and programming responsibilities, including the 
authority over funding decisions.
  Regrettably, we are resisting any involvement in reforming those 
MPO's to transform them from planning agencies to transportation 
decision makers.
  It is essential that we begin to face the questions of MPO's 
restructuring:
  Should proportional representation be required?
  Should there be mandatory membership for transit agencies?
  Should representatives of other transportation facilities, such as 
ports and airports, be included?
  What role should States have consistent with ISTEA?
  These are important questions that must be answered on a national 
scale if our push for a national transportation system is to be 
successful.
  I also want to congratulate the committee leadership on including a 
study by the Department of Transportation of how States and MPO's 
utilize existing highway and transit funding to meet transportation 
needs.
  It is absolutely essential for us to have the facts on how these 
funds are being invested in all areas of the State when we are making 
decisions on transportation programs.
  The Department of Transportation should be looking at whether all 
areas of States, urban suburban and rural, are receiving a fair and 
equitable share of highway and transit funding to meet their 
transportation needs.
  It is important to look at the needs of all areas, for passenger and 
for freight movements, and whether the existing use of the funding is 
giving all areas fair treatment.
  We have learned through long experience that there are some necessary 
shifts of funds to support transportation programs in areas that cannot 
support the funding needs on their own.
  As we enter the post-ISTEA transportation world, the question is 
whether these funding shifts are being undertaken on too great a scale.
  Are the current programs, for whatever reasons, pushing funds into 
some areas to the disadvantage of others?
  The goal of the study is to collect the information so that we will 
be able to make more informed decisions in the future. In a program of 
this size, we should know where the money is going.
  I thank the committee leadership for including this study in the 
committee amendment.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  Mr. BLUTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I too would like to commend the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta], chairman of the committee, and the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], chairman of the subcommittee, and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, Tom Petri, for their extremely hard work and 
excellent leadership in bringing this legislation before the House 
today. This legislation is very important, I believe, to our Nation's 
future. I believe we should do everything possible to get this 
legislation through the Congress this year ahead of schedule.
  Mr. Chairman, we must not risk losing the $21 billion NHS fund, and I 
thank the leadership of the Public Works Committee for getting us to 
this point.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Highway System is the logical continuation 
of our excellent interstate system and will help improve our Nation's 
competitive position in the world, by allowing for the smooth and 
efficient transportation of people and products. Every State will 
benefit greatly from this legislation, as it will make possible the 
reconstruction, rehabilitation, and resurfacing of roadways in 
virtually every area in the Nation. In addition to providing for much-
needed infrastructure improvements, it will serve as a job creator, 
putting thousands and thousands of people to work.
  Beyond laying out the National Highway System, H.R. 4385 makes some 
important technical changes to ISTEA, which has proven to be a 
tremendous success since it was enacted in 1991. The whole concept of 
intermodalism is a brilliant one which should be encouraged by the 
Federal Government at every turn. A first-class country should have a 
first-class transportation network.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this important legislation.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished 
member of our Committee on Public Works and Transportation, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg] who has been very helpful in 
the development of this legislation.
  Mr. HAMBURG. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the Richardson-Hamburg amendment which will be part of 
the Rahau en bloc, is an important step in pursuing the goals of the 
Indian Self-Determination and Education and Assistance Act. This 
amendment establishes a pilot program to permit Indian tribal 
governments to negotiate directly with the Secretary of Transportation 
for road construction projects in precisely the same manner as a State 
applying for a Federal-aid highway project.
  It is time that tribal governments be given equal dignity in 
administration of its roads and transportation systems. The Hoopa Tribe 
in my district in northern California has recently suffered months of 
delay processing its road construction projects through the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs. Multilayered bureaucratic review has delayed road 
construction and needlessly increased costs without any improvement of 
the projects.
  The Richardson-Hamburg amendment's pilot program allows tribal 
governments to demonstrate their ability to tailor planning to 
reservation needs and reduce administrative costs. It is time to allow 
tribal governments to focus scarce Federal dollars on building instead 
of bureaucratically reviewing road construction.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in moving Federal-tribal 
relationships in the transportation arena into the late 20th century. 
Removal of the patronizing trustee buffer will increase the 
effectiveness of Federal investment in our Nations' infrastructure and 
affirm tribal sovereignty. Support the Richardson-Hamburg amendment.

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues have so noted, today, with 
the passage of the National Highway System, we do take the next step 
toward meeting the Nation's transportation and economic goals for the 
next century. Having studied the proposal and all of the subsequent 
data, I see two things that stand out: First, this 160,000 mile system 
will carry 40 percent of the Nation's highway traffic and 75 percent of 
trucking commerce, and second, and I believe that Secretary Pena noted 
this when introducing NHS: a 1-percent improvement in the 
transportation efficiency will result in a $100 billion saving over the 
course of a decade. Thus, today, we literally begin the process of 
implementing a highway system that could undergird productivity gains 
and, in general, the American economy for decades to come.
  An efficient transportation system is particularly important to 
Washington State. Many of our industries, including Boeing, use ``just 
in time'' production techniques, where manufacturers reduce costs by 
minimizing inventories through the use of smaller, more frequent 
deliveries. Just in time manufacturing cannot coexist with endless 
lines of traffic and congestion. Similarly, without an efficient and 
seamless transportation system, the Nation's ports--such as Seattle and 
Tacoma--see profits dwindle and eventually disappear.
  I know that the efforts today of the Public Works Committee and the 
House of Representatives will go far toward putting America on strong 
economic footing for the 21st century.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, highway safety is one of my prime concerns with 
regard to the implementation of NHS. On too many of our Nation's 
roadway's, families and friends travel long distances over roads 
dangerously clogged. For instance, in my district, HIghway 18 has 
unfortunately earned the sobriquet of ``Death Alley''. Thus, I was 
extremely pleased to see that Secretary Pena included Washington's 
Highway 18 in his proposal for the National Highway System. Highway 18 
is important to my constituents, but what every Member should note is 
that highway safety improvements will take place in every town, in 
every State, all over America.
  And, Mr. Chairman, I especially want to note the efforts of the 
chairmen and ranking members, Mr. Mineta and Mr. Shuster, and Mr. 
Rahall and Mr. Petri, to expeditiously and fairly hold these hearings. 
Quick action by these gentlemen and the House Public Works and 
Transportation Committee has afforded our colleagues from the other 
body the ability to act this year on this bill. I urge Secretary Pena 
and Mr. Slater to use their considerable influence to urge action.
  Mr. Chairman, with prompt action, within months we could begin a 
process that will smooth the flow of goods and commerce as we transform 
older, clogged, unsafe lanes into modern safe and efficient roadways.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Coppersmith].
  (Mr. COPPERSMITH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. COPPERSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I ask the distinguished chairman of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], if he 
might join me in a colloquy. I understand that there has been an 
interpretation that the Secretarial waiver provisions contained in 
section 1038 of ISTEA would provide a State the opportunity to request 
an exemption from compliance with the minimum use requirement if the 
State determined the performance of recycled rubber technologies was 
inadequate. Can the gentleman comment on this interpretation, please?
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COPPERSMITH. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. According to section 1038(d)(5) of ISTEA, the Secretary 
may set aside the minimum use requirement if there is evidence that 
asphalt pavement containing recycled rubber does not perform adequately 
as a material for the construction or surfacing of highways and roads. 
This is a generic waiver, however, intended to apply only if there is a 
finding that, nationally, recycled rubber does not perform adequately 
in asphalt pavement. This waiver would not apply based on State-by-
State applications.
  Mr. COPPERSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
participation in this colloquy. I also congratulate the distinguished 
chairman for his leadership of this bill, as well as the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], with whom I 
interviewed for an internship when I was a college student. I did not 
get that job, but I got to work with him this way. I also salute the 
ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Bedford, PA 
[Mr. Shuster], and the chairman of full committee, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta], for their leadership and hard work on this 
important bill.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Laughlin], a member of the committee.
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
this time to me, and I want to thank the chairman of our powerful 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation, and the ranking 
Republican, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], for their 
leadership along with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] and the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] in bringing this bill to the 
floor ahead of schedule. Thanks to their leadership this bill will be 
ahead of a September 1995 deadline set forth in the ISTEA bill this 
Congress passed several years ago.
  Mr. Chairman, during the consideration of this bill our committee 
took stringent screening processes to ensure that all projects that 
were included in this bill were in compliance with the States' 
respective planning commissions and transportation authorities, and I 
am very proud that this committee that I have the privilege of serving 
with recognizes that transportation is needed throughout America and 
not just in a few places. From that point I thank the chairman for 
allowing my State of Texas to have included in this bill projects 
throughout the State so that our transportation system can be complete 
from one end of the State connecting to the Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, because of the importance of transportation and the 
safety of the traveling public, and also for commerce, it is important 
that this bill pass, and I would urge all my colleagues, and especially 
those from my State, to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the chairman of the powerful 
Public Works and Transportation Committee, and the chairman of the 
Surface Transportation Subcommittee as well as the ranking minority 
members of the committee and subcommittee for their work and leadership 
on this legislation.
  Thanks to the leadership, Congress is considering this legislation 
well ahead of the September 1995 deadline which was set forth by ISTEA 
and they have brought a sound bill to the floor for consideration.
  During consideration of H.R. 4385, the committee undertook a 
stringent screening process of all projects which were submitted to be 
included in the bill.
  Not only were each of the projects subjected to a screening process 
by the committee, each project which has been included in this bill was 
submitted in concurrence with their State transportation authority and 
the local government.
  Again, I would like to commend the committee leadership for their 
work on this legislation and I look forward to working with them as we 
move this bill through the legislative process.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Tucker], a distinguished member of our Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Tucker] 1 additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Tucker] is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  (Mr. TUCKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for having yielded 
this time to me, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 4385, the 
legislation to designate the national highway system which we call the 
NHS. As a member of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, 
Mr. Chairman, I know full well of the economic and commercial impact 
and potential of the national highway system. The bill, H.R. 4385, is 
an investment in this Nation's infrastructure. Infrastructure is the 
backbone to this Nation, and with the passage of this bill, Mr. 
Chairman, we will be addressing the needs for infrastructure, 
interstate highways, and moving towards the 21st century.
  Mr. Chairman, this is indeed an historic occasion. I would like to 
take this time to applaud the leadership of my subcommittee chairman, 
the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], and also the full 
committee chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], 
Secretary Pena, Rodney Slater and all the members of this fine 
committee, and of course the staff members who have made this work a 
great accomplishment.
  Mr. Chairman, we in the House need to make sure that the Senate takes 
up this legislation to designate the national highway system. We need 
to send the Senate this good bill, and it is time to do so, and I rise 
today to move this legislation to designate the NHS out of the House 
and to the Senate. The national highway system is one of the provisions 
provided for in the ISTEA legislation and will not have the deficit 
effect on the general fund. Within the ISTEA legislation there was a 
deadline given to Congress to pass the enacting legislation for the 
National Highway System by September 30, 1995, we are ahead of this 
deadline when we pass this bill on to the Senate. The ranking minority 
member of the full Committee on Public Works, Bud Shuster, said it 
best, ``This is a first, Congress is doing something ahead of 
schedule.'' I fully concur with Mr. Shuster, why do we have to wait 
until the last minute to implement such important legislation? I urge 
my colleagues to pass H.R. 4385 and then to call on our colleagues in 
the Senate to do the same.

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our colleague, the 
gentleman from Buffalo, New York [Mr. Quinn].
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4385, 
a bill designating the National Highway System [NHS] which was a 
keystone part of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Act 
[ISTEA].
  The NHS is one of the most critical undertakings by the Department of 
Transportation, Congress, and our State and local governments. It will 
be the first step in combining our Nation's highways, ports, airports, 
rail centers, border crossings, and population centers into one 
intermodal national transportation system.
  This new intermodal system will play a vital role in our country's 
economic growth. Although the NHS will comprise less than 5 percent of 
our Nation's highway miles, it will carry 40 percent of our Nation's 
total highway traffic, 75 percent of our commercial truck traffic, and 
80 percent of all tourist travel. What does this mean for our country, 
and for my constituents in western New York?
  It will mean people and commercial goods being transported quickly 
and safely to and from our water ports, airports, rail centers, and 
population centers.
  It will mean a reduction in highway fatalities since NHS improvements 
will help save lives on our Nation's highways.
  It will mean more tourism, and lower costs for our domestic 
industries--which means more jobs.
  I would like to applaud the work of our States and the Federal 
Highway Administration who worked hand in hand in putting the NHS 
together. This is an example of how Government should work. States 
working with local communities, the Federal Government working with our 
States, and Congress working with the Administration in a bipartisan 
and timely manner.
  As a member of the Public Works and Transportation Committee, I would 
also like to commend our chairman, Norm Mineta and our ranking member, 
Bud Shuster, as well as our subcommittee chairman, Nick Rahall and our 
ranking subcommittee member, Tom Petri on their hard and dedicated work 
in making this bill a reality so quickly.
  I urge the support of my fellow Members on both sides of the aisle, 
and I thank the gentleman for his time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another 
distinguished member of our subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Michigan 
[Miss Collins].
  (Miss COLLINS of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the National Highway System Designation bill before us today, H.R. 
4385. This bill has been masterfully crafted to address America's 
transportation needs mid-way through the life of the landmark 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
  The leadership of the Public Works and Transportation Committee are 
to be commended for the cordial, bipartisan manner in which this 
legislation has been developed and for their recognition of the needs 
of America's transportation infrastructure.
  H.R. 4385 contains a number of provisions which will maintain the 
excellence in transportation that America's travelling public has come 
to expect. It does not stop at designating the National Highway System 
proposed in ISTEA; it goes on to lay the groundwork for a National 
Transportation System that will integrate all modes of transportation 
into one national consolidated and efficient system.
  The bill also reallocates some authorizations under ISTEA. Half way 
into the life of ISTEA, we have learned a great deal about the new and 
innovative programs ISTEA authorizes. By realigning priorities in a 
revenue neutral manner, H.R. 4385 applies what we have learned to 
transportation law.
  Of particular interest to me is a provision that I proposed and that 
the Committee accepted that serves as a gentle reminder to States that 
they need to take their international border crossings, if they have 
any, into consideration when developing State transportation plans.
  A recent study of U.S. border infrastructure by the U.S. Department 
of Transportation that was mandated by ISTEA in 1991, the Assessment of 
Border Crossings and Transportation Corridors for North American Trade, 
recognizes that border crossing communities face special problems 
created by border crossing traffic, including increased traffic 
hazards, backups and pollution. More importantly, the study 
acknowledges for the first time that border States have not adequately 
addressed these special problems.
  With the implementation of NAFTA, these problems will only increase. 
H.R. 4385, with my amendment, requires border States to take 
international border crossings into account in their State planning 
process. This is an effective short-term solution to the problems faced 
by border crossing communities. This issue will, however, have to be 
revisited when ISTEA to reauthorized in 1997 if America wants to remain 
competitive under NAFTA.
  Let me reiterate that America's transportation systems are well 
served by every single provision of this legislation. I urge support 
for this bill, which is a bipartisan, revenue neutral, and constructive 
addition to our transportation policies.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our colleague, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, there is only one thing wrong with this 
bill, and that is the scheduling. We should have scheduled it in prime 
time so that the American people, 250 million from coast to coast, 
could see Congress at its finest, Democrats and Republicans working 
together hand in hand to craft a bill that addresses a critically 
important national need, and that is to upgrade our transportation 
infrastructure.
  I could not be prouder than I am to serve on this committee, I could 
not be prouder than I am to work with the subcommittee chairman, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] and to see the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Mineta] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] working 
together cooperatively, forgetting partisanship and concentrating on 
the mission.
  Mr. Chairman, the only thing wrong with this is the scheduling. We 
could be on ``Prime Time Live'' because the House is doing itself proud 
today.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to engage in a colloquy 
with the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rahall].
  Mr. Chairman, on March 10, 1994, the city of Forest Grove, the State 
of Oregon, and Washington County signed a funding agreement for 
preliminary engineering on the Highway 47 By-Pass in my district. This 
project has widespread support because it would address the serious 
local safety and commercial problems which result from the increasing 
truck traffic, which is forced to navigate four 90-degree turns through 
the town of Forest Grove, OR.
  Is it the subcommittee chairman's understanding that the Highway 47 
By-Pass is the type of project that would be eligible for consideration 
of Federal highway funds in future fiscal years?
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. FURSE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Oregon is absolutely 
correct.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman, and I 
also thank Chairman Mineta of the committee and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] 
for all they have done for Oregon and the Nation with this legislation.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to our colleague, the 
gentleman from San Diego, California [Mr. Packard].
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to rise to congratulate and thank the 
committee chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Rahall], and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] for 
the remarkable work they have done on this bill.
  Gridlock on California highways is a crucial problem for us that must 
be solved. This bill is going to help us do that, and I want to 
personally thank each one of these Members for their work.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to another distinguished 
member of our Committee on Public Works and Transportation, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I 
seek to engage the gentleman from West Virginia in a colloquy, if I 
may.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne] 
and I are concerned about the current status of the I-280 downtown 
connector and First Street improvement project which is an absolutely 
critical link to our State's only public hospital, its key emergency 
room and trauma services, our medical school complex and all of the 
city of Newark's major institutions of higher education, science and 
research. Congressional appropriations have been approved and signed 
into law in fiscal year 1990, fiscal year 1991, fiscal year 1992 and 
fiscal year 1993. The State of New Jersey is concerned as to whether 
the remaining unobligated balances available pursuant to fiscal year 
1992 and fiscal year 1993 law are still, in fact, available and have 
not been rescinded.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I can assure 
him that we have looked into the matter of this project carefully and 
the remaining unobligated balance pursuant to transportation 
appropriations in fiscal year 1992 and fiscal year 1993 remain in 
effect and are available for expenditure. H.R. 4385 does not rescind 
any of the funds. Thus, the State of New Jersey can move forward as 
expeditiously as possible on this important matter.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to a distinguished 
member of our Committee on Public Works and Transportation, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4385, a 
bill to designate the National Highway System. Let me thank Chairman 
Rahall and subcommittee Chairman Mineta, as well as the gentleman for 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Petri], for their hard work in support of this legislation.
  Establishing the NHS is a major step forward in prioritizing our 
transportation resources. This system identifies strategic roadways 
which are critical to economic activity in our communities across this 
Nation, and help us target Federal highway aid of those designated 
routes.
  The routes designated across central and southern Illinois, Route 50, 
Route 1, Route 13, and others, will contribute to our future economic 
development.
  I also appreciate the committee's efforts to revisit our 1991 highway 
bill, making important changes and adjustments to keep our 
transportation dollars working to meet our highest public needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues and urge adoption to the bill.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] has 4 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, if we have reached that point, I yield the 
balance of my time, 4 minutes, to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Pickle].
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Pickle].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Pickle] is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  (Mr. PICKLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], chairman of the 
subcommittee, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], for their 
courtesy.
  As we continue to discuss this highway bill, I want to commend this 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation for the leadership it has 
given us. The highway system is the backbone of all of our 
transportation movements in the United States, and it is important that 
we concentrate on that.
  But I want to make two points, Mr. Chairman. One, we ought to 
continue to concentrate on intermodalism. That is the key to our 
operations in the future. No longer are we going to build an airport in 
isolation or a road in isolation.
  Let me give an example. In my city of Austin, TX, alone, a city of 
over a half a million people, we are in the process now of building a 
new airport. We have bonds voted for it. We are going to build a new 
highway around one portion of the airfield. We have authorization now 
from this committee for a light rail system. We are thinking in the 
future about how we can operate.
  We must have intermodalism. This committee has taken the lead through 
the ISTEA legislation. Now is the chance, like in my city of Austin, 
where we can concentrate and prove we can have true intermodalism. That 
is important in the future.
  Second, I wanted to speak in terms of the future, Mr. Chairman. None 
of us can be a Jules Verne or a Nostradamus. As able as we are, we just 
cannot see far down the road, but we ought to be thinking more now in 
terms of how do we move goods and people in the future.
  What we have done in the past has been almost a miracle, when you 
look back 50 or 75 years. None of us could have dreamed we would have 
jets speeding across the sky or highways built with such accuracy now.
  We ought to be thinking in terms of how will we move goods and people 
50 and 75 years from now. I think we are doing business as usual, 
perhaps more than we ought to, and we ought to be thinking in the 
future.
  Let me just think with you for a moment and open our minds about what 
is going to happen. We are going to be moving people quickly and in 
different manners now that we cannot imagine what is going to happen in 
the next 50 or 75 years. You will be checking out of a hotel, perhaps 
even your home--and your bags will go straight to your destination. You 
will be not just driving to an airport where you can park 5,000 cars, 
but you are gong to get out to that airport or train station in ways 
you never dreamed.
  I say you are going to be squirting people out to the airport. We 
will be doing it by train, by helicopter, by planes, by magnetic 
levitation and--by tubes. I daresay to you we are thinking in terms now 
that we may be ``faxing'' people out to the airport.
  The point is, we are going to be moving goods and people so 
differently in 50 years than we are today that we ought to think in 
terms of how to do it. I have recommended to the committee that we have 
a demonstration project to tie together an idea of advanced 
transportation mobility center and think in terms of how do you move 
goods and people for the far future.
  Now, we are thinking about it, and the leadership for it has come 
from this committee, and I commend you for it. But as we build these 
great highways, the greatest highway system in the world, we ought to 
be concentrating on how do we differently move goods and people. That 
is the test.
  So today, I have been privileged to submit this idea or suggestion to 
you, I hope we have more discussion in the future about how we can 
actually meet the challenge in the next 50 or 75 years. It is going to 
come about. It has already come about in the last 50 to 75 years. The 
same kind of changes, differentials and progress are going to happen in 
the next 75 years, and we have to admit that it is going to happen.
  I hope that we concentrate on the thought of moving goods and people 
quicker and more efficiently and more economically. I believe we can 
meet that challenge, and we ought to set our task to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, as we consider the National Highway System bill, it is 
important to continue to think in terms of intermodalism, levitation or 
tubes. National highways are not built in isolation any more, but in 
conjunction with trains, planes, and other transit means. More and 
more, our society must find better ways to move goods and people, and 
that requires our best coordinated efforts.
  This bill directs the Department of Transportation to make 
recommendations for the development of the comprehensive National 
Transportation System, of which the National Highway System is the 
backbone. I strongly support the Department's idea of a national plan 
that would create a fully integrated national intermodal transportation 
system connecting the highways with rail, sea, air, and other modes of 
transportation. This is indispensable to the future of our country.
  In Austin, TX, a city of over one-half million people, we are in the 
process of building a new light rail system, a new airport, and a new 
highway to relieve traffic congestion. At some point in the future, 
high speed rail in Texas may play a part in this transportation plan. 
Our community is serious about intermodalism, and is poised to make 
itself a model of coordination.
  I believe it is imperative that we build these big highway systems, 
and that we focus on coordination of all means of transportation. I 
stress the intermodal approach to every new project we build. In the 
next 50 years we cannot imagine all of the different ways we will move 
people and goods--these changes are inevitable and will come about. One 
suggestion that I have made to some of my colleagues, and to the 
Department of Transportation is that we establish a large scale, 
comprehensive testing center where we can demonstrate the intelligent 
vehicles and roads in conjunction with all other kinds of future 
technologies and communications.
  There is an old saying that if you fail to plan, you really have 
planned to fail. Let's not plan to fail for our children and 
grandchildren. For once, let's get ahead of the curve.
  Mr. Chairman, new highways are absolutely essential, but they will 
not be built in isolation. We must plan for the future, and support the 
intermodal approach to everything we do in transportation.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to a distinguished 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer], a member of our committee.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4385 and 
want to congratulate the committee chair, the subcommittee chair, the 
ranking members, for aggressively working on this.
  I am the only Alabama member of this committee. We have worked very 
aggressively with our State Department of Transportation to see that 
the projects submitted were approved projects. They have been approved, 
the ones that could be approved, and I thank the committee for 
considering my State in that way.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield my final minute of time to the 
excellent chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], with whom we worked closely on this 
legislation.
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to say the 
final few words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], the chairman of the full 
committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], on the splendid 
job all have done in crafting this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill represents an historic demarcation point in 
the long evolution of the Federal aid to highway program. It launches 
us into the post-interstate era a time when we must think differently 
in the way we build, maintain, and operate our highway system, 
maintaining the interstate, which is 1 percent of the Nation's highway 
mileage, but carries 26 percent of the Nation's traffic, and to focus 
on the balance of our highway system and new highways needed throughout 
this country as the bill provides the framework.
  As an important part of this legislation, the committee has looked to 
the pressures that are put on this highway system, and has included 
very important language on nondivisible loads. That language requires 
the Secretary of Transportation to define what is meant by a 
nondivisible load, and to assure that, if it is in the public interest, 
nondivisible load regulations are applied to the entire NHS as well as 
to the Interstate System, so that we are not subjecting these road 
surfaces to excessive pressures.
  Mr. Speaker, the nondivisible load provision is but one element of a 
greater and much-needed effort to protect our highways and bridges from 
damages by overweight trucks.
  History teaches that trucks have gotten heavier and heavier over the 
years. In 1927, the truck weight limits were pegged at 40,000 pounds. 
That weight rose to 61,500 pounds in 1949; to 73,000 in 1974, and in 
1974 the limit on the Interstate was raised to 80,000 pounds.
  Truck-trailer lengths have also increased. In 1946 the limit was 46 
feet; in 1960 it rose to 40 feet; to 45 feet in 1974; to 48 feet in 
1984, to 53 feet in 1990. Many truck-trailer combinations are now 53 
feet in length, and there are some at 60 feet. To help put this in 
perspective, the 1946 Buick was slightly under 18 feet. Today's Honda 
Accord is only 15.33 feet long.
  As we stand at the threshold of a new era, as we launch the National 
Highway System, we must not allow those weight and length limits to 
continue this historic trend of increases.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced the Safe Highways 
and Infrastructure Preservation Act, which would extend to the new 
National Highway System and its drivers the same protection offered by 
truck length and weight limits now in effect on the Interstate System.
  Heavy trucks do enormous damage to our highways. According to a study 
by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials [AASHTO] a single heavy truck--even one that meets the 
Federal interstate standard of 80,000 pounds--does as much damage as 
9,600 cars. And, according to the Federal Highway Administration, a 
90,000-pound truck causes approximately two-thirds more wear than one 
that weighs in at 80,000 pounds.
  Truck crash rate studies consistently show that heavier trucks are 
more dangerous and cause more deaths. Extra-heavy trucks take more time 
and distance to merge, and to stop, than lighter trucks. The heavier 
the truck, the greater its chances of rolling over in a crash. Fatal 
crash rates for heavier tractor-trailers are consistently higher than 
for lighter trucks in rear-end collisions.
  AASHTO has called for a national semitrailer limit of 48 feet in 
order to be compatible with existing highway design and safety needs. 
However, all but one State now allow 53-foot rigs, 11 allow 57-foot or 
longer, and one State allows trailers 60 feet long. The NHS will 
include county roads and city streets as well as the interstate. Do we 
really want these rigs on our streets?
  It does not make sense to condemn the NHS to premature destruction 
before the first yard of concrete is poured. Nor does it make sense to 
deny motorists on this System the highest degree of safety.
  In addition to covering nondivisible loads, the bill I have 
introduced would:
  Extend existing interstate weight standards and truck lengths to the 
NHS. This would preserve current State weight standards including those 
which exceed the Federal limit, and permit those rigs of more than 53 
feet in length now on the road to continue to operate; and
  Restore to DOT authority to review State claims of grandfathered 
rights to run trucks heavier than the Federal limits.
  I believe these changes must be made an integral part of the National 
Highway System program before we start pouring concrete, to keep faith 
with the American people who must foot the bills for the NHS and any 
future repairs; and who must share the NHS with big and heavy trucks.
  I am gratified at the pledge by Public Works and Transportation 
Committee Chairman Mineta, and Surface Transportation Subcommittee 
Chairman Rahall, to hearings on this bill in early June. And I look 
forward to waging a very strong effort to include the provisions of the 
Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act in the final NHS 
bill.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my 
continued support for including three projects within the National 
Highway System [NHS] authorization bill, all which have been 
recommended for funding by the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation.
  Two of these proposals seek funding to improve major east-west 
highways in Kern County, Highway 58 and Highway 178. In addition, one 
of these highways, Highway 58, has been proposed for inclusion in the 
National Highway System.
  The first project is the continuation of a project that was initially 
authorized in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
[ISTEA]. The ISTEA authorized $4.7 million in funding for the 
acquisition of land and rights-of-way for the expansion of Highway 58 
through downtown Bakersfield. The sponsors of that project are now 
seeking $4.5 million in additional funding to continue this process, a 
figure which the Committee on Public Works and Transportation has 
recommended. Highway 58 is the primary artery for vehicles entering 
northern and central California from Interstate 40 in Barstow, since it 
connects with Highway 99 in metropolitan Bakersfield, as well as 
Interstate 5 a few miles west of Bakersfield.
  The second project involves the construction of a crosstown corridor 
in metropolitan and downtown Bakersfield that would coincide with a 
proposed light-rail system. The Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation has recommended $4.5 million in funding for the first 
phase of the project, which include the city of Bakersfield, Kern 
County and the Kern Council of Governments. This funding will be used 
for route identification, environmental clearances and right-of-way 
acquisition for the eventual construction of an eight-lane freeway 
connection between Highway 99 and the point where Highway 178 ends 
today. These highways are currently connected along the proposed route 
by a series of narrow surface streets. The completion of this project 
would ease travel through the metropolitan area, by reducing congestion 
on surface streets, as well as improve safety in these areas.
  The final project involves a light-rail system for metropolitan 
Bakersfield. The Committee on Public Works and Transportation has 
endorsed the sponsor's request of $2 million in funding for preliminary 
engineering, final design and right-of-way acquisition. When completed, 
the light-rail system will cover 22.1 miles and serve the metropolitan 
Bakersfield area. Construction of such a mass-transit system would 
serve to reduce congestion and lead to improvements in road safety and 
air quality in the city. In coordination with planned highway 
improvements, the light rail line would create an intermodal 
transportation network for the Bakersfield community. The first section 
proposed for construction would link the downtown area with the campus 
of the California State University at Bakersfield.
  I support the inclusion of all three of these important projects 
within the National Highway System authorization bill, projects which 
seek to alleviate serious traffic and air quality problems in one of 
the largest metropolitan areas in the San Joaquin Valley.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4385, 
the National Highway System designation. The legislation will provide 
needed assistance in rebuilding the infrastructure of our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation addresses more than just 
transportation, it takes positive steps in worker safety and in the 
environment. It requires a person trained and certified in workzone 
safety to be at every construction project site. This legislation also 
takes the necessary steps toward increased use of recycled paving 
material.
  Finally, this bill authorizes projects throughout the country to 
rebuild our infrastructure. Let me give you one example, from my home 
city of Hartford, CT. Interstate 91 cut the city off from the 
Connecticut River. We are in the process of reestablishing that link. 
Funds in this bill will allow us to construct walkways around the 
riverfront linking four surrounding municipalities. Residents and 
visitors alike will be able to walk along the river and enjoy the 
natural beauty which this area holds. These walkways will provide 
access that had previously been impossible because of the interstate 
highway. This effort would bring the city and river together again, or 
to use the phrase now current in Hartford, it will allow us to 
recapture our riverfront.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, for not only does it 
provide for today's transportation needs, it provides opportunities for 
the future.
  Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the I-69 highway 
project especially the segment from Bloomington-to-Evansville. It is 
crucial that H.R. 4385, and I-69, are supported by the House. 
Development of the I-69 corridor is fully deserving of this designation 
as a priority within the national highway system.
  Currently, I-69 extends from Port Huron, MI, to Indianapolis, IN. 
Now, we must move to complete the Indianapolis-to-Evansville, IN 
segment of the I-69 project. The bill authorizes $5 million through 
fiscal year 1997 to compete design work, and sets the stage for the 
construction of this vital transportation infrastructure investment.
  The Bloomington-to-Evansville segment of this project would reduce 
the travel time to Evansville by approximately 45 minutes, for a 
savings of up to 8.5 million manhours per year. Additionally, figures 
prepared by the Indiana Department of Transportation suggest that, once 
completed, it will reduce personal injuries by 19,492, and fatalities 
by 342 over the base case if the 20-year period from 2000 to 2020. This 
alone could constitute $818 million in savings in property damage and 
personal injury costs over that period.
  This project has broad public support throughout the Eighth District, 
and with good reason. It is crucial to establishing stronger ties 
between the thriving--but now isolated--riverport city of Evansville 
and Indianapolis. It also will serve to more fully integrate the 
economic activity of Evansville with the rest of the State.
  Equally crucial to southwest Indiana is the impetus it would provide 
to increasing economic opportunity in southwestern Indiana. Five of the 
12 poorest counties in Indiana are in this portion of the State, and 
much of this area is reflective of the national trend which has seen 
the population of small town and rural America decline from 36 percent 
to 25 percent since 1950.
  The recent preliminary findings of an ongoing Government Account 
Office [GAO] study on rural development suggest that nationwide, the 
poorest 25 percent of rural counties are sparsely populated, isolated 
form urban centers, agriculturally-based, and located primarily in the 
Midwest. These characteristics predominate in southwestern Indiana.
  Completion of the I-69 extension project would end this isolation. It 
also would provide the transportation infrastructure necessary to help 
diversify the local economies of the area, which would, in turn, help 
end the economic decline experienced there in recent years.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, today as we consider H.R. 4385, the 
National Highway System Designation Act of 1994, I would like to 
commend my colleague Leslie Byrne for including language in the bill 
that prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from requiring the 
States to convert highway signs to metric units. During this time of 
budget cuts and constraints, we must do what we can to lessen the 
burden of States and local governments. Federally-mandated conversion 
of highway signs to metric would superfluously force states to spend 
hundreds of millions of dollars. The State of Kansas Department of 
transportation alone would have to pay about $1.4 million to convert a 
computer system and $2.5 million to change thousands of mileage and 
speed-limit signs. We should be very cautious before passing 
legislation that imposes an undue financial responsibility on city 
governments across the country. Before considering metric conversion of 
our highway signs, we must examine the total economic impact on 
Federal, State and local budgets. Again, I support Representative 
Leslie Byrne's efforts to put an end of the use of Federal funds to 
require States to convert highway signs to metric units. In these-
tightening times governments must prioritize expenditures. At this 
time, I believe that metric conversion is not an imperative for our 
Nation's highway system.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support 
for H.R. 4385, the National Highway System Designation Act of 1994, and 
to extend my thanks to the Public Works and Transportation Committee 
for their hard work. I would especially express my appreciation to my 
friend, subcommittee Chairman Rahall, for his support to ensure that 
this legislation addresses the country's most pressing transportation 
needs, and to Chairman Mineta, for his continued leadership, working to 
improve our national infrastructure.
  In my hometown of St. Paul, considerable time and effort have been 
expended to reinvigorate the downtown business environment. The focus 
of this endeavor has been an attempt to promote, encourage and 
coordinate new development along the Mississippi riverfront. I 
personally have worked for many years to improve access to the 
Mississippi along the downtown area with the hope that one day it will 
be the centerpiece, a major attraction to St. Paul, a river city which 
owes its very existence and success to its location and association 
with the Mississippi River.
  Key to the success of this effort is the replacement of St. Paul's 
100-year-old Wabasha Street Bridge. This bridge, which connects the 
downtown area to an important neighborhood and business district, is 
rapidly approaching the end of its useful lifespan. Built before the 
turn of the century, the Wabasha Street Bridge has reached such a state 
of deterioration that it is no longer possible to permit my traffic 
other than small passenger vehicles to use it. Even at that, the 
Wabasha Street Bridge must be inspected twice a month for safety and 
will have to be closed to traffic in the near future, forcing over 
20,000 cars a day to find an alternative route across the river.
  Mr. Chairman, the pending loss of this structure clearly represents a 
significant threat to St. Paul and any effort to revive the riverfront 
region in downtown St. Paul, unless we can provide for its replacement. 
Thankfully, subcommittee Chairman Nick Rahall recognized the urgency of 
this situation and thoughtfully included this project in the National 
Highway System Designation Act. It is the flexibility, demonstrated by 
the committee and committee leadership, that is inherent in this 
measure, responding to St. Paul's urgent need and to the need for other 
projects around the Nation, which will restore and maintain our 
Nation's transportation system.
  On behalf of the Minnesota congressional delegation and the citizens 
we serve, I would also like to express my appreciation to Chairman 
Rahall for the other important Minnesota projects contained in H.R. 
4385. Many of these improvements and upgrades, such as the 77th Street 
project, are vital to the continued safe use and economic benefit of 
Minnesota's roads. Moreover, the initial commitment to developing a 
lightrail transit system between St. Paul, the University of Minnesota, 
and Minneapolis helps to implement an important goal and plans for 
Minnesota's efforts within the context of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act--to promote greater development and 
reliance on mass transit.
  Mr. Chairman, this measure addresses 159,000 miles of highways and 
puts to work taxpayer funds upon needed transportation and transit 
projects. The proposed funds for trails, about $11 million, if vital to 
continuing positive progress to save corridors and access points for 
public use, much of which would be lost in the absence of this 
initiative. The legislative initiative for use of recycled rubber in 
highway and road pavement is also an important step forward and I 
commend the committee for such work and policy.
  Finally, I strongly support the amendment and provisions that attempt 
to warrant the construction and repair work being financed by the 
funding authorized or expended through the trust funds. It is essential 
that the taxpayer dollars be prudently expended and that contractors 
stand behind their work so that we are not faced with inordinate 
expenses and faulty quality in the programs funded by this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this 1994 National Highway System Designation Act is 
the product of considerable thought and effort. I urge my colleagues to 
support this vital legislation.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of 
H.R. 4385, a bill designating the National Highway System. While there 
are many fine provisions contained in this bill, as a member of the 
House Surface Transportation Subcommittee, the subcommittee that 
reported out this bill, I want to bring to my colleagues' attention 
certain sections of H.R. 4385 that are of particular interest to myself 
and my constituents.
  Mr. Chairman, contained in H.R. 4385 is a $10 million authorization 
for the restoration of the West Trenton line, located in west-central 
New Jersey. I thank Chairman Rahall and ranking minority member Petri 
for including this worthy project in the bill. I would also like to 
thank two of my constituents who took time out of their busy schedules 
to testify before the House Surface Transportation Subcommittee on the 
merits of the West Trenton line: Mayor Ken Scherer of Hillsborough, NJ, 
and Barbara Roos, president of the Somerset County Chamber of Commerce. 
Mayor Scherer, Ms. Roos, and many other individuals too numerous to 
mention have been instrumental in the effort to bring this project to 
fruition. I commend them for their dedication to bring public 
transportation back to this area of New Jersey.
  I believe restoring the West Trenton line makes sense for a number of 
reasons. First, it would provide cost-effective traffic congestion 
relief to Routes 31, 27, 1, 206, 22, and for trips to Newark and New 
York City. The present highway system has no excess capacity, and 
building new roads or expanding existing ones is a costly and 
potentially difficult proposition. Major highway improvements in this 
corridor have proven infeasible and have been removed from the State 
transportation plan. Bus transit has been tried and found inappropriate 
because of highway congestion. Additionally, the line would help the 
State meet its Clean Air Act mandates, and improve the current 1.08 
average vehicle occupancy for this area--which is the lowest in the 
State. Obviously, developing transit in this area makes sense.
  Incredibly, despite having a very large commuter population, there is 
no scheduled public transit service to Philadelphia, Trenton, Newark or 
New York from this area. This was not always the case, however. The 
West Trenton line started in the 19th century and continued under 
various owners until 1982. Unfortunately, service was terminated in 
1982 because of declining ridership due to old equipment, poor on-time 
performance and infrequent service. The line is now operated by Conrail 
as a freight line.
  Much has changed since the line stopped carrying passengers 12 years 
ago. For example, the area has grown substantially since 1982, with 
sharp increases in traffic on both State and local roads. The township 
of Hillsborough alone has experienced a 51-percent increase in 
population from 1980 to 1990. According to NJ Transit, the government 
entity which would operate this line, a total of 104,000 people now 
reside in the West Trenton corridor.
  The line would provide transit service to southern and central 
Somerset County as well as the northern and western portions of Mercer 
County, and would carry up to 1,750 commuters by 2015. The extent of 
service would be from West Trenton to Bound Brook, with stops planned 
at Hopewell and Belle Mead. The train would then join the Raritan 
Valley Line and terminate at Newark. Passengers traveling south could 
board SEPTA trains to Philadelphia or other points in Pennsylvania. In 
fact, there are plans to have future coordination with the Pennsylvania 
Department of Transportation to eventually extend the line into Bucks 
County.
  This $10 million authorization would be used for capital costs for 
construction of shelters and low-level platforms, construction of park-
and-ride lots, improvements to access roads, and minor upgrades to the 
railroad tracks.
  This project enjoys the support of many groups, including: the Union 
County Transportation Advisory Board, the Lower Bucks County Chamber of 
Commerce, the Somerset County Planning Board, the Greater Princeton 
Transportation Management Association, the Mercer County Chamber of 
Commerce, the Somerset County Chamber of Commerce, the Somerset County 
Environmental Stewardship Council, RideWise of Raritan Valley, the West 
Trenton Coalition, and the Middlesex County Planning Board. This 
project also enjoys the support of my fellow New Jersey colleague Dick 
Zimmer, whose constituents would significantly benefit by restoration 
of passenger service on this line. I look forward to working with Dick 
and these groups to bring this project to completion.
  I also want to bring to my colleagues' attention a bill, H.R. 3926, I 
offered as an amendment to H.R. 4385 in subcommittee that would help 
the States address the enormous damage the winter of 1993-94 inflicted 
on the roads of the Northeast and Midwest States. As my colleagues are 
aware, the constant freezing and thawing of last winter have done 
tremendous damage to the roads by creating potholes and other hazards 
to motorists. Because of the particular severity of last winter, in 
March I introduced bipartisan legislation authorizing $98 million for 
road repairs to combat this problem. To date, H.R. 3926 has garnered 28 
cosponsors.
  Specifically, my bill would provide funds to the 20 hardest-hit 
States and the District of Columbia to alleviate potholes and for road 
resurfacing. Under the terms of my amendment, 50 percent of each 
State's allocation would be directed toward repair of county and local 
roads, which are often in the worst shape. These funds would be 
restricted only to offset the cost of road repairs due to the severity 
of this past winter. Simply put, my amendment is a ``one-shot deal'' to 
help the States pay to repair the roads from the damages sustained last 
winter. This temporary program was not meant to be, nor would it have 
created an ongoing relief program.

  Mr. Chairman, roads in poor condition cost motorists tens of millions 
of dollars in repair bills, impede commerce, and most importantly, 
threaten the safety of the motoring public. While fixing the roads is 
not as headline-grabbing as opening a new bridge or highway, the 
condition of our roads is of primary concern to every motorist. And 
while road repair has never been a Federal concern, I believed an 
exception should have been made this one time because of the abysmal 
condition of our roads due to the historic severity of last winter.
  While passage of H.R. 3926 as an amendment to H.R. 4385 would have 
brought relief to the millions of motorists who drive daily on these 
roads, my amendment was unfortunately defeated by voice vote. However, 
in my home State of New Jersey, the Whitman administration, realizing 
the merits of this idea, took action by allocating funds to the State's 
21 counties to offset the costs to local governments for road repair.
  Mr. Chairman, also included in H.R. 4385 is $4 million in contract 
authority to reconstruct and widen I-287 from I-78 to Route 22, and add 
signs, noise barriers, and lighting. As this was the New Jersey 
Department of Transportation's top request to Congress for funding this 
year, I hope that completion of this improvement will bring much-needed 
relief to the motorists who use this congested artery.
  Finally, I am gratified that the House Public Works and 
Transportation Committee included report language at my urging 
concerning the Urban Core. Probably the most important of the Urban 
Core project is the Secaucus Interchange project. This needed project 
would provide access to the proposed Secaucus transfer station from the 
New Jersey Turnpike. I believe the Secaucus interchange project 
deserves the continuing support of Congress, despite the Clinton 
administration's narrow-minded recommendation to zero fund this and all 
other Urban Core projects. I commend my colleagues on the committee for 
recognizing the importance of the Urban Core.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4385 is a good bill. It puts people to work 
rebuilding America's infrastructure. It will not add to the massive 
Federal deficit because of the rescissions contained in the bill. It 
builds upon the foundations laid by the Congress in the landmark ISTEA 
legislation, Public Law 102-240. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``aye'' on H.R. 4385.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 
4385, the National Highway System Designation Act of 1994.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member would begin by commending the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the chairman of the Committee 
on Public Works and Transportation, as well as the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the ranking member of the 
committee, for their assistance in expediting this legislation.
  This Member would also like to direct commendations to the 
distinguished gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], the chairman 
of the subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Petri], the ranking member of the subcommittee for their 
exceptional work in bringing this bill to the Floor.
  Mr. Chairman, it's been said that if you don't know where you're 
going, any road will get you there. This Member is pleased, however, 
that this legislation not only gives direction to the surface 
transportation needs of the future, it also designates which roads will 
get you there. The National Highway System will provide a blueprint for 
this Nation's highway needs by identifying the roadways most important 
for defense, commerce, and travel.
  This Member is pleased that the National Highway System includes a 
number of routes which are of great importance to Nebraska. Of 
particular significance is the decision to include a highway in a new 
State highway link between Wayne, NE, and the expected site of the 
Newcastle area--Vermillion bridge over the Missouri River. The addition 
of this route was included due to this Member's recommendation and the 
approval of the Nebraska Department of Roads. The bridge and this 
proposed highway link to Wayne will serve as a connector for one of the 
major north-south routes across Nebraska. This Member has long 
expressed concern that an adequate access road be provided for this 
project.
  It is also encouraging that State Highway 2 and U.S. Highway 81 in 
Nebraska are designated as components of the National Highway System.
  Another important addition to the National Highway System is the 
highway mileage for what will eventually be a south and east bypass 
around the city of Lincoln, NE. On a related matter, this Member would 
also like to thank the committee and subcommittee for recognizing and 
proposing to act upon the need for a feasibility and corridor study for 
a highway project to complete the remaining element of what would be a 
circumferential highway around the city of Lincoln, by examining routes 
that at this point are exclusively outside the city limits of the city 
of Lincoln.
  While this is a critically needed study, the city of Lincoln's 
Metropolitan Planning Organization receives only about $190,000 per 
year in Federal funds for all transportation planning activities. 
Clearly, such an expensive study would require additional funding in 
order to be undertaken by the city of Lincoln.
  The current transportation network in Lincoln, NE, a city of nearly 
200,000, is under stress and the implementation of a new transportation 
system must be studied. The approach which seems to make the most sense 
is the completion of a circumferential roadway system by the 
development of highway segments south and east of the city. This 
completed circumferential roadway would help meet current needs and 
accommodate future growth before such highway development becomes 
prohibitively expensive. Completion of a beltway highway for Lincoln 
has been discussed for more than three decades and the need to 
implement such a plan becomes more apparent each year.
  A recent city of Lincoln task force looking at the possibility of the 
beltway determined that the development of such a system would be a 
crucial component of the regional transportation network which would 
accomplish the goals of moving traffic around congested urban areas and 
providing for an expanded capacity of the urban system.
  In addition, a truck route study was recently prepared for the city 
of Lincoln. One of the conclusions reached by the study was that a very 
key element, if not the most important element of the Lincoln Truck 
Study implementation plan is construction and completion of the East-
South Bypass link. that study found this proposed project would 
complete the beltway system for the city of Lincoln, thus enabling 
major amounts of regional traffic to bypass the major urban development 
areas of Lincoln.
  This Member would also like to stress that he has received written 
assurances from the city of Lincoln and the Nebraska Department of 
Roads that these aforementioned National Highway System designations in 
the Lincoln area are surrogate or temporary designations that will be 
replaced by new route designations when the bypass study identifies the 
desired route locations. This Member is voting for this legislation 
with that understanding.
  This Member would further stress that the eventual south and east 
corridor designation must be exclusively outside the city limits of the 
city of Lincoln. Although the study will determine the optimal corridor 
zone, this Member would like to reiterate what he stated before the 
Committee on Public Works' Subcommittee on Surface Transportation on 
March 8, 1994. This Member believes it would be preferable to locate 
the eastern segment on or between 96th and 134th Street and the 
southern segment on or between Yankee Hill Road and Saltillo Road. With 
respect to the southern route, this Member believes the corridor should 
be located no further north then Yankee Hill Road and possible south of 
Saltillo Road.
  This Member is also pleased that the bill includes authorization for 
a bicycle-pedestrian cable-styled bridge in Lincoln, NE. The structure 
will be built completely out of advanced composite materials using 
fiber reinforced plastics. Fiber reinforced plastics were chosen due to 
the potential cost-effectiveness and durability of the materials as 
well as their noncorrodible nature--an important consideration in 
Nebraska.

  The proposed bridge would provide a vital link between two trail 
segments and create a safe crossing over major roadways in Lincoln, NE. 
Nebraska Highway 2 and 27th Street is one of the city's busiest 
intersections and has a high automobile accident rate. For public 
safety reasons, this Member is a long-time supporter of an overpass 
project at this site and this Member is pleased that the city has 
chosen such an innovative approach to accomplish this goal.
  The proposed bike-pedestrian bridge would be a nearly unique 
structure in the United States which would not only solve a 
transportation problem but also provide valuable information for future 
projects of its kind. This innovative bridge project--which is expected 
to have the longest span of its kind in the world--is a joint effort 
involving the University of Nebraska, the city of Lincoln, the Nebraska 
Department of Roads, and the Federal Highway Administration.
  This Member would also like to express his appreciation for the 
committee's continued support for the proposed bridge between the 
Newcastle, NE, area and Vermillion, SD. For six decades, the prospect 
of constructing a bridge in the Newcastle-Vermillion area has enjoyed 
wide-spread support. An impressive coalition of community 
organizations, local governments, businesses, and individuals from both 
Nebraska and South Dakota has joined together in support of this 
bridge.
  Such a bistate consensus is possible because the benefits resulting 
from the bridge's construction are so clear to all. These benefits 
include increased economic development, enhanced recreational 
opportunities, improved access to health care, and a reduction in 
transportation costs. Also, the construction of this bridge will 
improve the general quality of life for the area's residents by 
creating additional opportunities for higher education and cultural and 
social activities.
  Due to the current lack of a bridge in this region, communities in 
northeast Nebraska and southeast South Dakota--including Vermillion, 
SD, the location of the University of South Dakota--have remained 
isolated from each other despite their proximity. As a result, economic 
activity in the region has been hampered and labor and commerce options 
have been limited. Clearly, the completion of this bridge across the 
Missouri River will be a significant aid in attracting new businesses 
to the area.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member is convinced that this bridge, when 
completed, will serve as a connector for one of two major north-south 
routes across Nebraska. In addition, to act as a connector it will 
first require a new highway connection between Wayne, NE, and the 
bridge; and second, it will require an upgrading of the highway between 
Wayne and Norfolk, NE, to connect to U.S. 81 which is currently being 
upgraded.
  This will mean that from the Kansas border, near Chester, NE, there 
will be a direct link across Nebraska to Vermillion, SD, and I-29 to 
points north, northeast, and northwest.
  This Member would also like to thank the committee and subcommittee 
for continuing to recognize the need for a bridge between Niobrara, NE, 
and Springfield, SD. Initial authorization for such a bridge is 
contained in a provision of Public Law 100-17, the Surface 
Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987. An 
authorization of $4.7 million was also included in the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. However, this amount was 
less than originally requested and less than necessary to complete the 
project.
  Because of redistricting, the Nebraska portion of this project is now 
in the district of the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Barrett]. However, due to this Member's previous efforts and that of my 
distinguished colleague from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson], and the 
tremendous need for this bridge, this Member remains totally supportive 
of this project.
  The proposed Niobrara-Springfield bridge has enjoyed widespread 
support from residents on both sides of the river as well as local and 
State officials. Since 1927, efforts have been made to construct this 
much-needed bridge. The issue became even more critical in the mid-
1980's with the abandonment of ferry service. As a result of a previous 
legislative initiative, the Department of Transportation directed the 
Nebraska Department of Roads and the South Dakota Department of 
Transportation to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
reinstituting ferry service. The report, which was completed in 
December 1987, estimated that the car ferry would cost approximately $5 
million to $6 million. Because of the Department of Roads' analysis 
that a bridge could be built for far less than was previously 
discussed, the bridge option became more attractive.
  Motorists, farmers, and business people would benefit greatly from 
the reduced travel distance if this bridge is built. Also, because of 
the beneficial impact this bridge would have on the Indian tribes in 
the area, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has expressed its support for 
the project. For example, by reducing the driving time from the Santee 
Sioux Reservation to the Indian Health Service facility in Wagner, SD, 
the bridge would play an important role in improving medical care for 
the tribes served by the facility.
  This Member would also like to thank his distinguished colleague from 
South Dakota [Mr. Johnson] for his outstanding efforts and cooperation 
with this Member on these two interstate bridge projects. The 
completion of these bridges will play an important role in facilitating 
a mutually positive interdependence between communities in Nebraska and 
South Dakota. Mr. Johnson certainly deserves equal recognition for the 
important role he has played in bringing this goal closer to reality. 
It has been a pleasure to continue the close and good cooperation on 
their and other bistate projects and issues.
  This legislation includes a number of other important provisions, 
such as a prohibition on the expenditure of any Federal or State funds 
to construct, erect, or place highway signs using the metric system. 
This Member would like to reiterate his strong opposition to using 
either State or Federal funds solely for the purpose of removing 
existing signs to convert to the metric system. Such unnecessary 
actions would require large expenditures during tight budgetary times.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4385 addresses the current and future highway 
needs of the United States and this Member urges his colleagues to 
support the bill.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, this highway bill, H.R. 4385, merits 
strong support. Congressman Rahall and Congressman Petri have led the 
Public Works Subcommittee on Transportation in writing a bill that is 
responsible and sensitive to local needs. The bill designates 159,000 
miles of highways in the United States and its territories as a 
National Highway System [NHS]. These roads represent only 4 percent of 
the Nation's highways, yet they carry over 50 percent of our road 
commercial traffic. The NHS incorporates the present Interstate System, 
the strategic highway corridor network, and other high priority 
highways that link interstate and interregional roadways with ports, 
airports and other means of mass transit.
  I testified in support of an essential authorization for Montgomery 
County, MD, the Washington Beltway Advanced Traffic Monitoring System. 
The authorization will fund the design and construction of the system 
along 12\1/2\ heavily-traveled miles of I-495 from the American Legion 
Bridge to MD 650. I am happy that this authorization is a part of H.R. 
4385.
  The Capital Beltway is Washington's ``Main Street'' and also its 
interstate. From 75,000 to 227,000 vehicles travel daily on the beltway 
and by the year 2010, there may be as many as 300,000. Widening the 
beltway would be too costly; better traffic management is the key to 
improvement. The Advanced Traffic Monitoring System will allow the 
collection of up-to-the-minute information on beltway traffic 
conditions.
  The information will be processed at the Maryland State Highway 
Administration's Statewide Operations Center and motorists will be 
provided information on accident locations and appropriate detour 
routes through variable message signs and travelers advisory radio.
  In the space of 12 days last summer, seven people were killed in a 
series of beltway accidents. This monitoring system would have 
immediately alerted drivers to the massive traffic backup and the 
potentially dangerous road situation to which they were speeding.
  Mr. Chairman, with this authorization will come economic benefits, 
cleaner air, an improvement in traffic flow, and safer road conditions 
on a perilous part of our ``Main Street.''
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the leadership of the 
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and the full committee for their 
excellent attention to seeing this bill to the floor, as well as the 
bi-partisan nature in which they went about crafting this legislation. 
I strongly support the designation of the National Highway System as an 
integral part of our intermodal transportation network. The NHS is the 
backbone of our Nation's highway infrastructure and this bill confirms 
Congress' commitment to maintaining our Nation's bridges and highways.
  In my district in southern Missouri, good roads and safe bridges are 
the lifeblood for almost every daily activity we undertake. As a 
predominantly rural area--good, solid, four-lane roads take our 
agricultural goods to market, our kids to school, and parents to work, 
and allow tourists from all over the country to travel to our wonderful 
natural attractions. We drive a lot in southern Missouri to get where 
we need to go; this bill recognizes the importance of maintaining and 
improving the existing system we have for future generations.
  Mr. Chairman, to those who might claim that this bill is pork--I 
would tell them it is not pork. It is an investment in our ability to 
compete. It is an investment in our ability to enhance economic 
activity throughout the country, and to move our goods more efficiently 
and quickly to their final destination. This committee worked hand-in-
hand with the Department of Transportation, State highway officials, 
and local community leaders to find out what the transportation 
priorities were across this Nation. And I want to commend Mr. Rahall 
for the excellent and fair criteria that he put forth in order to 
prioritize the needs across the country.
  I know of no other means as effective as the one used by this 
committee in consulting with all parties to meet the infrastructure 
needs of this country. If this is pork, Mr. Chairman, then I associate 
myself with it proudly. If U.S. News and World Report or others in the 
media want to beat up on this committee for a flashy story--then that 
is their prerogative--but I believe that it is an investment that will 
move us into the 21st century. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to 
strongly support this bill.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the National 
Highway System Designation Act of 1994, and I commend the committee for 
the many hours of hard work they have invested in bringing this 
legislation before the House today. While I am grateful to the 
committee for recognizing the importance of beginning the process of 
funding the construction of the Route 17/Route 4 interchange in 
Paramus, NJ, I am deeply concerned that $3 million is simply 
insufficient to significantly advance this $90 million project in a 
timely fashion.
  The Route 17/Route 4 interchange is a major east/west to north/south 
link in northern New Jersey and its improvement is vital for commuters 
and commerce. The interchange lies at the heart of the Borough of 
Paramus and Bergen County's commercial hub, and it is a critical 
crossroad for all of northern New Jersey. Fortunately, local officials 
have worked closely with the New Jersey Department of Transportation to 
formulate the approved interchange design.
  At an estimated total cost of $90 million, completion of the Route 
17/Route 4 interchange project is heavily dependent upon Federal 
funding. Full funding for the interchange should not be a problem since 
both Route 17 and Route 4 have been designated by the U.S. Department 
of Transportation as components of the urbanized area portion of the 
NHS, at the request of the NJ Department of Transportation, the North 
Jersey Transportation Coordination Council, and other local planning 
organizations, and in accordance with applicable provisions outlined in 
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 [ISTEA]. 
As a currently authorized project, the Route 17/Route 4 interchange has 
already demonstrated its merit to the U.S. Congress.
  Unfortunately, the desperate need for Federal funding of this project 
has been accelerated due to a land dispute brought about by the 
specifications of the NJ Department of Transportation approved design. 
The owner of the so-called Alexander's property have threatened to raze 
the existing retail structure and construct three new retail facilities 
unless a minimum of $8 million in Federal funds can be made available 
to purchase the property in fiscal year 1995. Should this property be 
redeveloped, the entire project will have to be placed on-hold while 
less-vehicle-efficient redesign is formulated. Very simply, this 
scenario is completely unacceptable.
  The existing interchange was built in 1932 and designed to 
accommodate an estimated volume of 12,000 vehicles per day. Clearly, 
with the present estimated daily volume of 250,000 vehicles, the 
interchange is no longer suitable, and in dire need of improvement. Not 
only is the interchange one of the busiest intersections in New Jersey, 
it is also one of the most dangerous--averaging one motor vehicle 
accident per day.
  In addition to improving safety and traffic flow, the new interchange 
will help control northern New Jersey's critical air pollution problem 
and alleviate the heavy traffic flow which has spilled over to 
residential streets as commuters attempt to avoid the crowded 
interchange.
  The State of New Jersey stands ready to provide the required matching 
funding necessary to bring the Route 17/Route 4 interchange problem to 
a successful resolution. I urge the House in the strongest possible 
terms to continue to uphold the Federal Government's commitment to 
construction and completion of the Route 17/Route 4 interchange through 
subsequent authorizations and appropriations. Moreover, I implore my 
colleagues in the U.S. Senate to address the urgency of the Alexander's 
site development issue.
  Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the residents of New Jersey's Fifth 
Congressional District and all affected northern New Jersey residents, 
I thank the committee for including the Route 17/Route 4 interchange in 
this most needed legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 
4385.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4385, 
a bill to designate the National Highway System. I want to commend 
Chairman Mineta, Subcommittee Chairman Rahall, and the entire Public 
Works Committee for their efforts in crafting this legislation. My 
colleague from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] deserves special credit for his 
work on behalf of our home State.
  One of my top priorities in Congress has been to keep the Westside 
Light Rail Project in Oregon on track. Completing the Westside Light 
Rail Project on schedule is essential to meeting a number of important 
goals in my district and region: adding transportation capacity, 
addressing air quality concerns, meeting local mobility needs, and 
maintaining the quality of life. Public support for this project is 
remarkably high, and is best represented by the bond measure to provide 
the local match for the Westside project which passed in 1990 with 74 
percent of the vote.
  When Oregonians put their money where their month was, and took money 
out of their own pocketbook to put it in light rail, they did so with 
the commitment that the Westside Light Rail Project would extend from 
downtown Portland to downtown Hillsboro. I am proud to have helped meet 
that commitment. One of the reasons I am so supportive of this 
legislation is because I was able to work with the committee to get 
important language included in the bill regarding the Westside Light 
Rail Project, specifically the Hillsboro Extension. The bill before us 
today authorizes construction and payment for the Hillsboro Extension, 
guaranteeing its construction. It also confirms, once and for all, that 
the Hillsboro segment is a part of a singular, unified Westside Light 
Rail Project. The Hillsboro Extension is an integal part of my region's 
economic future part, and key to the Westside Light Rail Project. 
Without a project specific authorization, there was a possibility that 
all the efforts of our local people could go unrealized. The language 
in this bill guarantees that the Hillsboro segment will be built, and 
that the entire region will benefit from its presence.
  One of the keys to keeping public support so high for the Westside 
project has been ensuring that the project stays on schedule. To this 
end, I also worked to include language which allows the Westside 
project to use an integrated project financing plan to maintain maximum 
flexibility between Federal, local, and State resources. We are 
fortunate that the Westside Light Rail Project has such widespread 
support at all these levels in Oregon. The language in the bill will 
keep the Westside project on schedule by reducing borrowing costs and 
avoiding lengthy--and often costly--delays.
  In Oregon, we also have a willingness to use innovations to make our 
system more efficient and accessible. The Westside project will be the 
first transit system in North America to operate wheelchair-accessible 
low-floor cars. I am pleased that the bill before us today includes 
language to allow the Federal Government to fully fund the low-floor 
cars, and help the Westside project comply with the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. It is my belief that low-floor cars will become a 
mainstay in American transit, and Portland is proud to lead the Nation 
in their use.

  Earlier this year, Secretary Pena came to Oregon to announce the 
release of some discretionary funding for the Westside project. At that 
time, the Secretary said that Portland has ``the best transit system in 
the country.'' Everyone in Oregon has a right to be proud, Mr. 
Chairman, of the good work that is done at the local, State, and 
regional level in light rail. As I stated earlier, Westside Light Raid 
has been one of my top priorities in Congress, and am particularly 
pleased that this bill ensures that the Hillsboro segment of the 
Westside Light Rail Project will be a reality, and thousands of 
Oregonians will be able to continue enjoying what we call paradise.
  I would also like to mention two other projects which are of 
significance to me. Earlier today I had the opportunity to participate 
in an colloquy on the House floor with Chairman Mineta about the 
Highway 47 bypass in Forest Grove, OR. Currently, over 100 trucks must 
navigate four 90-degree turns through downtown Forest Grove on a daily 
basis, created a serious, negative effect on this growing community. 
Local businesses are affected because the endless parade of trucks 
threaten the safety of pedestrian traffic and discourage commerce. 
Pacific University, a growing, vibrant institution with a wonderful 
future, continues to expand on both sides of Highway 47. Daily, 
hundreds of students participating in collegiate activities traverse 
back and forth across Highway 47, dodging trucks. These problems, which 
are seriously troublesome at the present time, will be further 
exacerbated by the increased logging which is planned to take place in 
Tillamook Forest over the next few years. In fact, it is estimated that 
soon nearly 300 log trucks alone will move through Forest Grove on a 
daily basis. The Highway 47 bypass will help address this crucial 
safety problem, while helping restore commerce in downtown Forest 
Grove. There is no doubt that the Highway 47 bypass will reap long-term 
economic benefits for the entire region. For too long, this project has 
not been given the attention it deserves. I am pleased that the State, 
county, and city recently signed an agreement to fund preliminary 
engineering for this project, and I will continue diligently working to 
be Forest Grove's best Federal ally until the Highway 47 bypass becomes 
a reality.
  I also would like to mention a project which is in this bill 
regarding improvements at the Port of Portland. I was very active in 
supporting these projects in my neighbor Rep. Wyden's district because 
they will help increase trade and create jobs throughout the Northwest. 
In fact, the delegation letter I authored--signed my colleagues in 
Oregon--represents the importance of these projects to the entire 
region. These projects will provide improved freight access and 
capacity at the Rivergate marine terminals at the Port of Portland, 
creating jobs in our community. They will provide more efficient 
freight movement and decrease the percentage of truck traffic. This 
reduction will contribute to air quality while reducing noise and 
congestion in adjacent communities. The Port of Portland has been 
working diligently to make the concept of intermodality set forth in 
ISTEA a reality, and deserves credit for advancing these important 
projects.

  The legislation before us today also designates a number of roads in 
my district as part of the National Highway System. I am pleased to 
support this effort, and believe these roads will continue to be vital 
to my region's transportation infrastructure.
  Route 30 from Portland to Astoria; Route 26 from Portland to Seaside; 
Route 101/26 from Astoria to Seaside; Route 202 in Astoria; Highway 47 
from Forest Grove to Route 26; Route 8 from Forest Grove to Beaverton; 
Cornell Road from Route 8 to Route 26; Murray Road from Route 8 to 
Route 26; Route 99W and Route 18 from Portland to Willamina; Route 217 
from Route 26 to I-5; Route 43 from I-5 to Lake Oswego.
  I am pleased to have worked closely with my friend Peter DeFazio on 
this legislation, who has proven once again what a leader he is on 
transportation issues for the State of Oregon. I also want to thank all 
the people I have worked with in Oregon who have helped make this 
legislation a reality. I think that H.R. 4385 is a significant step 
forward for trade and commerce in America, and strongly urge all my 
colleagues to support its passage here in the House today.
  Ms. SNOWE, Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my severe 
disappointment that Congress did not seize this timely opportunity to 
address a matter of grave concern to 38 States.
  Recently, the U.S. Department of Transportation released Federal 
figures which show that 38 States will lose a total of $53.3 million in 
fiscal year 1995 because they haven't adopted both seat belt and 
motorcycle helmet laws. States which have chosen not to enact these 
laws must spend 1.5 percent of their much needed highway construction 
funds in fiscal year 1995 on highway safety programs, which States 
already fund.
  This means that in fiscal year 1995, 38 States will be forced to 
divert transportation funds from where the States believe it should be 
spent, to where the Federal Government dictates it should be spent. It 
means that $53.3 million will not be available to States for upgrading 
records in the National Highway System, for constructing and 
maintaining highways, or for promoting mass transit. This is not sound 
Federal policy.
  My State of Maine is facing the prospect of having roughly $850,000 
in fiscal year 1995 and $1.7 million in fiscal year 1996 highway 
transportation funds diverted away from important highway construction 
projects and into already funded highway safety programs. In fact, 
Maine has an effective State motorcycle rider education program 
administered by the Secretary of State and paid for by motorcycle 
registration fees.
  Maine has always spent its Federal money carefully, making every 
effort to ensure that the best interests of its residents are met. It 
is completely unacceptable that Federal Government should prescribe to 
Maine how its highway funds must be spent. In essence, the Federal 
Government is forcing Maine--and other States--to waste valuable 
Federal resources.
  Consequently, I introduced H.R. 799, to prevent the Federal 
Government from penalizing States which have chosen not to enact 
mandatory seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws. I think it is 
interesting to note that a minority of our 50 States have seen fit to 
enact mandatory laws on seat belts and helmets. That is why my bill has 
the support of 123 Member of the House of Representatives from both 
sides of the aisle and from a majority of our Nation's States.
  The House Public Works and Transportation Subcommittee on Surface 
Transportation, during markup of the National Highway System bill, 
adopted an amendment similar to H.R. 799 which was offered by 
Congressman Petri. I congratulate my colleagues on the subcommittee who 
took this first step in the fight to protect valuable highway 
construction funds. Unfortunately, Congressman Petri's amendment was 
stricken from the bill during full committee markup.

  There is no doubt that we must do everything we can to make our roads 
safer, to reduce the number of fatalities and severe injuries that 
occur on our Nation's highways. But I do think, however, that there are 
better ways for us to achieve these goals without resorting to the 
coercive tactic of imposing Federal penalties on our financially 
burdened States. One such alternative is to provide grants for States 
that meet standard goals for the reduction of fatalities and serious 
injuries. In this way, the Federal Government would respect the 
prerogative of States to determine their own ways to increase highway 
safety.
  Furthermore, States have been doing an excellent job promoting 
highway safety without Federal intrusion. Since 1983, the number of 
accidents has decreased from 307 per 10,000 registered motorcyclists to 
206. Fatalities have similarly declined from 8 per 10,000 registered 
motorcyclists to 6 per 10,000 registered motorcyclists. In addition, 
the number of motorcycle occupant fatalities declined 45.4 percent, 
from 5,144 in 1980 to 2,808 in 1991, when no mandatory Federal helmet 
law existed. This substantial decline in motorcycle fatalities 
demonstrates that States are capable of addressing safety issues 
without Federal Government intervention.
  It is also interesting to note that of the 10 States with the lowest 
motorcycle accident rate, 8 had motorcycle rider education programs. In 
fact, the 10 States with the lowest motorcycle accident rates spent 
64.4 percent more on motorcycle rider education programs than States 
with the 10 highest motorcycle accident rates. Clearly safety programs 
do work, and we should allow them to continue to work.
  It is contrary to the principles of federalism for the Federal 
Government to thwart the efforts of States to rebuild their 
transportation infrastructure as a way of coercing the public to buckle 
up. In addition, it is flawed public policy, because poorly maintained 
roads are often quite hazardous to the motoring public. Mr. Chairman, 
opportunities to address serious public policy problems do not often 
present themselves, and it is deplorable that Congress passed up this 
valuable opportunity to protect States' rights and to preserve valuable 
Federal highway funds.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4385, the National 
Highway System Designation Act. I commend the members of the Public 
Works and Transportation Committee, in particular, Mr. Mineta, Mr. 
Shuster, Mr. Rahall, and Mr. Petri, for their hard work in drafting 
this legislation. They are also to be commended for their foresight in 
moving this legislation in 1994, rather than waiting until the last 
minute deadline for Congress to act on the designation in September of 
1995.
  In addition to the designations for the National Highway System, this 
legislation addresses several transportation needs in the country. In 
my own district, the Hoosier Heartland Corridor is a high priority 
Congressional corridor and is included in the National Highway 
designation. This highway which has undergone significant engineering 
and development, is moving into the construction phase. Over the next 
few years, major segments of the highway will be ready for 
construction. The Hoosier Heartland Corridor extends east-west from 
Fort Wayne to Lafayette. The project enjoys broad bipartisan support in 
the communities along the corridor. It is a major delivery route for 
manufacturers and producers of goods. Tractor trailers use the road as 
well as passenger cars and slow-moving farm equipment. This project is 
a top priority for the Indiana Department of Transportation, which 
projects that every dollar invested in this project will return a 
benefit of $3.50. I am pleased and grateful to the Committee for 
recognizing the importance of this highway and including an additional 
authorization of $3 million as a good first step in keeping this 
project on track.
  I also want to commend the Committee for recognizing the budgetary 
restraints and for balancing authorizations with rescissions. I am 
hopeful that this measure can move expeditiously.
  Mr. KYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the National Highway 
System bill, H.R. 4385.
  Last fall, after a long and arduous debate about the earmarking of 
projects in the Transportation Appropriations bill, 281 House Members 
voted against earmarking and for the distribution of funds under the 
more equitable distribution system established by the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
  Yet, here we are again talking about earmarking funds for 
transportation projects--this time, more than $2 billion for 352 road 
projects and transit systems.
  The problem with earmarking is that funds are allocated, not 
necessarily according to merit or which projects will help the United 
States of America most, but rather according to how well connected 
politically the project sponsors are. Fifty-five percent of the total 
funding earmarked in H.R. 4835 goes to 10 States which just happen to 
be represented by 36 of the 64 Public Works Committee members. 
California alone takes 14.5 percent of the total.
  The Congressional Quarterly reported 2 weeks ago how funding was 
allocated on the majority side based on House Members' records on 
spending cuts. According to the report, those who advocated spending 
cuts in the past were more likely to have their requests cut--or not 
funded at all--than those who had opposed spending cuts. The merit of 
projects didn't matter. House Members were simply rewarded if they had 
already voted the partyline for more spending and bigger government.
  That not only means that American taxpayers are probably being forced 
to finance some questionable projects, but that many areas of the 
country are being deprived of additional funding that could be used for 
really needed transportation improvements. Those States that don't win 
the earmark game are left to compete for a share of a significantly 
reduced pot of money.
  The earmarking of funds in the 1991 ISTEA bill shortchanged Arizona. 
Although my State got a few projects in that bill totalling $18.3 
million, pork-barreling cost Arizona about $300 million over the life 
of the more than 500 projects earmarked in that legislation.
  The earmarks in last year's Transportation Appropriations bill would 
have resulted in no additional dollars for Arizona. But, by 
distributing them by formula instead, the State got almost $4 million 
more.
  The earmarks in this bill give Arizona money for three projects, for 
a total of about $15 million. The Department of Transportation has yet 
to compute how much each State would get if the money were allocated by 
formula instead, but the estimates I've seen for Arizona are that it 
would get anywhere between $800,000 and $7 million more.
  The Arizona projects in this bill are worthwhile and have merit, and 
it's because of that that I believe they would be funded if the money 
were allocated by formula instead. But, the point is that Arizona would 
get a lot more money to allocate for other worthy projects, too.
  Mr. Chairman, I know this bill has a great deal of support and will 
likely pass overwhelmingly, but I believed last year that the practice 
of earmarking was wrong, and I still believe that today. For that 
reason, I will vote against this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment and is considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 4385

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National 
     Highway System Designation Act of 1994''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Secretary defined.

   TITLE I--NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION AND OTHER PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. National Highway System designation.
Sec. 102. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program.
Sec. 103. Quality improvement.
Sec. 104. Contracting for engineering and design services.
Sec. 105. Highway safety promotion program.
Sec. 106. Project eligibility.
Sec. 107. Wisconsin substitute project.
Sec. 108. Use of recycled paving material.
Sec. 109. Work zone safety.
Sec. 110. Corrected projects.
Sec. 111. Rescissions.
Sec. 112. Additional projects.
Sec. 113. Study of radio and microwave technology for commercial and 
              other motor vehicles.
Sec. 114. Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency.
Sec. 115. Railway-highway crossings project.
Sec. 116. New River Parkway, West Virginia.
Sec. 117. National recreational trails.
Sec. 118. Coal Heritage.
Sec. 119. Limitations on funding of operating assistance.
Sec. 120. Intercity bus transportation.
Sec. 121. Repeals of existing projects.
Sec. 122. Miscellaneous transit projects.
Sec. 123. Multiyear contract for metro rail project.
Sec. 124. Metric system signing.
Sec. 125. Metropolitan planning.
Sec. 126. Statewide planning.
Sec. 127. High priority corridor feasibility study.
Sec. 128. Reevaluation.

       TITLE II--TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO ISTEA AND RELATED LAWS

Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. References to Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and 
              Defense Highways.
Sec. 203. Federal-Aid Systems.
Sec. 204. Apportionment.
Sec. 205. Programs of projects.
Sec. 206. Advance acquisition of rights-of-way.
Sec. 207. Standards.
Sec. 208. Letting of contracts.
Sec. 209. Prevailing rate of wage.
Sec. 210. Construction.
Sec. 211. Advance construction.
Sec. 212. Maintenance.
Sec. 213. Certification acceptance.
Sec. 214. Availability of funds.
Sec. 215. Federal share.
Sec. 216. Payment to States for construction.
Sec. 217. Relocation of utility facilities.
Sec. 218. Advances to States.
Sec. 219. Emergency relief.
Sec. 220. Applicability of axle weight limitations.
Sec. 221. Toll roads.
Sec. 222. Rail-highway crossings.
Sec. 223. Surface transportation program.
Sec. 224. Metropolitan planning.
Sec. 225. Statewide planning.
Sec. 226. Control of junkyards.
Sec. 227. Nondiscrimination.
Sec. 228. Enforcement of requirements.
Sec. 229. Availability of rights-of-way.
Sec. 230. Highway bridge program.
Sec. 231. Great River Road.
Sec. 232. Hazard elimination program.
Sec. 233. Use of safety belts and motorcycle helmets.
Sec. 234. National maximum speed limit.
Sec. 235. Minimum allocation.
Sec. 236. National minimum drinking age.
Sec. 237. Revocation of drivers' licenses of individuals convicted of 
              drug offenses.
Sec. 238. Reimbursement for segments of Interstate System constructed 
              without Federal assistance.
Sec. 239. Federal lands highway program.
Sec. 240. Bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkway.
Sec. 241. State Highway Department.
Sec. 242. Management systems.
Sec. 243. State planning and research.
Sec. 244. Appropriation for highway purposes of Federal lands.
Sec. 245. International highway transportation outreach program.
Sec. 246. Highway safety programs.
Sec. 247. National Highway Safety Advisory Committee.
Sec. 248. Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures.
Sec. 249. Public transit facilities.
Sec. 250. Pensacola, Florida.
Sec. 251. High cost bridge project.
Sec. 252. Congestion relief project.
Sec. 253. High priority corridors on National Highway System.
Sec. 254. High priority corridor project.
Sec. 255. Rural access projects.
Sec. 256. Urban access and mobility projects.
Sec. 257. Innovative projects.
Sec. 258. Intermodal projects.
Sec. 259. Miscellaneous Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
              Act amendments.
Sec. 260. Disadvantaged business enterprise program.
Sec. 261. Amendments to Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation 
              Assistance Act of 1987.
Sec. 262. Freeway service patrols.
Sec. 263. Pan American Highway.
Sec. 264. Section 3 program amendments.
Sec. 265. Metropolitan planning.
Sec. 266. Formula grant program.
Sec. 267. Mass transit account block grants.
Sec. 268. Grants for research and training.
Sec. 269. General provisions.
Sec. 270. Period of availability and reapportionment of section 16 
              funds.
Sec. 271. Rural transit program.
Sec. 272. Nondiscrimination.
Sec. 273. Authorizations.
Sec. 274. Project management oversight.
Sec. 275. Planning and research program.
Sec. 276. Needs survey and transferability study.
Sec. 277. State responsibility for rail fixed guideway system.
Sec. 278. National Transit Institute.
Sec. 279. Increased Federal share.
Sec. 280. Performance reports on mass transit systems.
Sec. 281. Cross reference to Federal Transit Act.
Sec. 282. Participation in International Registration Plan and 
              International Fuel Tax Agreement.
Sec. 283. Intelligent vehicle-highway systems.
Sec. 284. Title 49, United States Code, amendments.
Sec. 285. Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 amendments.
Sec. 286. Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 amendments.
Sec. 287. Cleveland Harbor, Ohio.
Sec. 288. Other Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
              technical amendments.

     SEC. 2. SECRETARY DEFINED.

       In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Transportation.
   TITLE I--NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION AND OTHER PROVISIONS

     SEC. 101. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION.

       (a) Designation; Modifications.--Section 103 of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection 
     (b) the following:
       ``(c) Initial Designation of NHS.--The National Highway 
     System as submitted by the Secretary of Transportation on the 
     map entitled `Official Submission, National Highway System, 
     Federal Highway Administration', and dated May 10, 1994, is 
     hereby designated within the United States, including the 
     District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       ``(d) Modifications to the NHS.--
       ``(1) Proposed modifications.--The Secretary may submit for 
     approval to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Public Works and 
     Transportation of the House of Representatives proposed 
     modifications to the National Highway System. The Secretary 
     may only propose a modification under this subsection if the 
     Secretary determines that such modification meets the 
     criteria and requirements of subsection (b). Proposed 
     modifications may include new segments and deletion of 
     existing segments of the National Highway System.
       ``(2) Approval of congress required.--A modification to the 
     National Highway System may only take effect if a law has 
     been enacted approving such modification.
       ``(3) Required submission.--Not later than 2 years after 
     the date of the enactment of the National Highway System 
     Designation Act of 1994, the Secretary shall submit under 
     paragraph (1) proposed modifications to the National Highway 
     System. Such modifications shall include a list and 
     description of additions to the National Highway System 
     consisting of--
       ``(A) connections to major ports, airports, international 
     border crossings, public transportation and transit 
     facilities, interstate bus terminals, rail and other 
     intermodal transportation facilities; and
       ``(B) any congressional high priority corridor or any 
     segment thereof established by section 1105 of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 
     2037) which was not identified on the National Highway System 
     designated by subsection (c), subject to the completion of 
     feasibility studies.''.
       (b) Proposed NTS.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a proposal for a comprehensive National 
     Transportation System using the National Highway System as 
     the backbone for establishing the National Transportation 
     System. In developing such proposal, the Secretary shall 
     consult with and consider the views of States and 
     metropolitan planning organizations.

     SEC. 102. CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Apportionment Formula.--Section 104(b)(2) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``in fiscal year 1994'' after ``State'' 
     each place it appears;
       (2) by inserting ``in fiscal year 1994'' after ``States'' 
     the first place it appears;
       (3) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ``in fiscal year 
     1994'' after ``Act'';
       (4) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``in fiscal year 
     1994'' after ``subpart'';
       (5) in subparagraph (C) by inserting ``in fiscal year 
     1994'' after ``subpart'';
       (6) in subparagraph (D) by inserting ``in fiscal year 
     1994'' after ``subpart'';
       (7) in subparagraph (E) by inserting ``in fiscal year 
     1994'' after ``subpart'';
       (8) by inserting ``in fiscal year 1994'' after ``carbon 
     monoxide''; and
       (9) by inserting ``in fiscal year 1994'' after ``relative 
     populations''.
       (b) Eligible Projects.--Section 149(b) of such title is 
     amended by inserting before ``of a national ambient'' each 
     place it appears ``or maintenance''.
       (c) States Without a Nonattainment Area.--Section 149(c) of 
     such title is amended by inserting ``in fiscal year 1994'' 
     after ``Act''.

     SEC. 103. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT.

       (a) Life-Cycle Cost Analysis.--Section 106 of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Life-Cycle Cost Analysis.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     program to require States to conduct an analysis of the life-
     cycle costs of all projects on the National Highway System.
       ``(2) Analysis of life-cycle costs defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term `analysis of life-cycle costs' means a 
     process for evaluating the total economic worth of one or 
     more projects by analyzing both initial costs as well as 
     discounted future costs, such as maintenance, reconstruction, 
     rehabilitation, restoring, and resurfacing costs, over the 
     life of the project or projects.''.
       (b) Value Engineering.--Section 106 of such title is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Value Engineering for NHS.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--The Secretary shall establish a program 
     to require States to carry out a value engineering analysis 
     for all projects on the National Highway System.
       ``(2) Value engineering defined.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `value engineering analysis' means a 
     systematic process of review and analysis of a project or 
     activity during its design phase by a multidisciplined team 
     of persons not originally involved in the project or activity 
     in order to provide suggestions for reducing the total cost 
     of the project or activity and providing a project or 
     activity of equal or better quality. Such suggestions may 
     include a combination or elimination of inefficient or 
     expensive parts of the original proposed design for the 
     project or activity and total redesign of the proposed 
     project or activity using different technologies, materials, 
     or methods so as to accomplish the original purpose of the 
     project or activity.''.
       (c) Warranties.--Section 112 of such title is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Warranties.--Each contract relating to construction 
     of a Federal-aid highway entered into after the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection shall contain a provision that 
     requires the contractor to guarantee and warrant that the 
     contractor will perform the contractor's obligations under 
     the contract in accordance with requirements for Federal-aid 
     highway projects under applicable contract law.''.

     SEC. 104. CONTRACTING FOR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES.

       (a) Permanent Program.--Section 112(b)(2) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraphs:
       ``(C) Performance and audits.--Any contract or subcontract 
     awarded in accordance with subparagraph (A), whether funded 
     in whole or in part with Federal-aid highway funds, shall be 
     performed and audited in compliance with cost principles 
     contained in the Federal acquisition regulations of part 31 
     of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(D) Indirect cost rates.--Instead of performing its own 
     audits, a recipient of funds under a contract or subcontract 
     awarded in accordance with subparagraph (A) shall accept 
     indirect cost rates established in accordance with the 
     Federal acquisition regulations for 1-year applicable 
     accounting periods by a cognizant government agency or 
     independent certified public accountant if such rates are not 
     currently under dispute. Once a firm's indirect cost rates 
     are accepted, the recipient of such funds shall apply such 
     rates for the purposes of contract estimation, negotiation, 
     administration, reporting, and contract payment and shall not 
     be limited by administrative or de facto ceilings in 
     accordance with section 15.901(c) of such title 48. A 
     recipient of such funds requesting or using the cost and rate 
     data described in this subparagraph shall notify any affected 
     firm before such request or use. Such data shall be 
     confidential and shall not be accessible or provided, in 
     whole or in part, to any other firm or to any government 
     agency which is not part of the group of agencies sharing 
     cost data under this subparagraph, except by written 
     permission of the audited firm. If prohibited by law, such 
     cost and rate data shall not be disclosed under any 
     circumstances.
       ``(E) State option.--Subparagraphs (C) and (D) shall take 
     effect 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 
     subparagraph with respect to all States; except that if a 
     State, during such 2-year period, adopts by statute an 
     alternative process intended to promote engineering and 
     design quality and ensure maximum competition by professional 
     companies of all sizes providing engineering and design 
     services, such subparagraphs shall not apply with respect to 
     such State.''.
       (b) Repeal of Pilot Program.--Section 1092 of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 
     U.S.C. 112 note; 105 Stat. 2024) is repealed.

     SEC. 105. HIGHWAY SAFETY PROMOTION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 312 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 313. Highway safety promotion program

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall carry out 
     education, research, development, and technology transfer 
     activities to promote the safe operation and maintenance of 
     commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce.
       ``(b) Grants.--To carry out the purposes of this section, 
     the Secretary shall make grants to, and enter into 
     cooperative agreements with--
       ``(1) a not-for-profit membership organization that has 
     been engaged exclusively in truck-related research and 
     education since 1985; and
       ``(2) not-for-profit organizations engaged in commercial 
     motor vehicle safety research.
       ``(c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the costs of 
     activities carried out under this section shall be 100 
     percent.
       ``(d) Funding.--Out of administrative funds deducted under 
     section 104(a) of this title for each of fiscal years 1995 
     through 1997, the Secretary shall make available--
       ``(1) for making grants and entering into cooperative 
     agreements under subsection (b)(1) $1,000,000; and
       ``(2) for making grants and entering into cooperative 
     agreements under subsection (b)(2) $500,000.
     Such funds shall remain available until expended.
       ``(e) Contract Authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, approval by the Secretary of a grant under 
     this section shall be deemed a contractual obligation of the 
     United States for payment of the Federal share of the grant.
       ``(f) Annual Report.--Annually, beginning on January 1, 
     1996, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report which 
     provides information on the progress and activities of the 
     programs conducted under this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 3 of 
     such title is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 312 the following:

``313. Highway safety promotion program.''.

     SEC. 106. PROJECT ELIGIBILITY.

       Section 108(b) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (23 
     U.S.C. 101 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(1)'' before ``such costs may be 
     further''; and
       (2) by striking ``, and (2) the amount of such costs shall 
     not include the portion of the project between High Street 
     and Causeway Street''.

     SEC. 107. WISCONSIN SUBSTITUTE PROJECT.

       (a) Federal Assistance.--Subsection (b) of section 1045 of 
     the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
     (105 Stat. 1994) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Eligibility for Federal Assistance.--
       ``(1) General rule.--Upon approval of any substitute 
     project or projects under subsection (a)--
       ``(A) the costs of construction of the eligible transitway 
     project for which such project or projects are substituted 
     shall not be eligible for funds authorized under section 
     108(b) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956; and
       ``(B) a sum equal to the amount that would have been 
     apportioned to the State of Wisconsin on October 1, 1994, 
     under section 104(b)(5)(A) of title 23, United States Code, 
     if the Secretary had not approved such project or projects 
     shall be available to the Secretary from the Highway Trust 
     Fund to incur obligations for the Federal share of the costs 
     of such substitute project or projects.
       ``(2) Availability.--Amounts made available under paragraph 
     (1)(B) shall be available for obligation on and after October 
     1, 1994. Amounts made available under paragraph (1)(B) shall 
     remain available until expended and shall be subject to any 
     limitation on obligations for Federal-aid highways 
     established by law.
       ``(3) Applicability of title 23 u.s.c.--Amounts made 
     available under paragraph (1)(B) shall be available for 
     obligation in the same manner as if such funds were 
     apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; 
     except that the Federal share of the cost of any project 
     carried out with such funds shall be determined in accordance 
     with section 103(e)(4)(D) of such title.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subsection (c).--The second sentence of subsection (c) 
     of section 1045 of such Act is amended by striking ``the 
     authority of section 103(e)(4) of title 23, United States 
     Code,'' and inserting ``section 21(a)(2) of the Federal 
     Transit Act''.
       (2) Subsection  (d)(1).--Subsection (d)(1) of section 1045 
     of such Act is amended by striking ``project for'' and all 
     that follows through the period at the end thereof and 
     inserting ``transit project.''.
       (3) Subsection (d).--Subsection (d) of section 1045 of such 
     Act is amended by striking paragraph (3) and by redesignating 
     paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
       (c) Reduction of Interstate Construction Authorization.--
     Section 108(b) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 is 
     amended by striking ``$1,800,000,000 for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1996'' and inserting ``$1,800,000,000, 
     reduced by the amount made available under section 
     1045(b)(1)(B) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991, for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 1996''.

     SEC. 108. USE OF RECYCLED PAVING MATERIAL.

       (a) DOT Guidance.--Section 1038(c)(1) of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 109 
     note) is amended by striking ``an interest in the use of such 
     asphalt'' and inserting the following: ``concern in 
     fulfilling the minimum utilization requirements of subsection 
     (d)(1). Such technology transfer activities and training 
     programs shall be initiated without delay and shall include 
     all eligible uses of recycled rubber, alternative 
     applications, and other materials and shall focus on 
     achieving the best performance results for all eligible uses. 
     Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this sentence, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a 
     report detailing the plans to implement this subsection.
       (b) State Certification.--Section 1038(d)(1) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``established by this section.'' and 
     inserting ``, other materials, and alternative applications 
     established by this section. Each State shall also annually 
     certify its progress in its waste tire abatement program 
     under paragraph (7).'';
       (2) by striking ``1995'' the first place it appears and 
     inserting ``1996'';
       (3) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``1994'' and inserting 
     ``1995'';
       (4) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``1995'' and inserting 
     ``1996'';
       (5) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (6) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``1996; and'' and 
     inserting ``1997.''; and
       (7) by striking subparagraph (D).
       (c) Other Materials.--Section 1038(d)(2) of such Act is 
     amended by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``; except that, of that amount, no more than \1/
     2\ may be met with the use of asphalt containing reclaimed 
     asphalt in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. For the purposes of 
     this paragraph, cold in-place recycling technology shall be 
     allowable.''.
       (d) Penalty.--Section 1038(d)(4) of such Act is amended--
       (1) by inserting before ``The'' the following: ``(A) 
     Withholding.--'';
       (2) by indenting subparagraph (A), as designated by 
     paragraph (1) of this subsection, and moving such paragraph 2 
     ems to the right;
       (3) by inserting before ``utilization requirement'' the 
     following: ``by which such State does not satisfy the''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Escrow account.--Apportionments withheld from a State 
     by the Secretary under this subsection shall be placed in 
     escrow for 2 years pending satisfaction of the minimum 
     utilization requirement of paragraph (1) and pending 
     satisfaction of the requirement for which the apportionments 
     were originally withheld. Pending satisfaction of such 
     requirements, the withheld apportionment shall be returned to 
     the State.
       ``(C) Sunset provision.--If a State which has 
     apportionments withheld under this paragraph has not 
     satisfied current minimum utilization requirements of 
     paragraph (1) within 2 years and has not fulfilled the 
     previous requirements for which such apportionments were 
     withheld, then the apportionments held in the escrow account 
     shall be returned to the Highway Trust Fund.''.
       (e) Individual State Reduction.--Section 1038(d)(7) of such 
     Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``prior to disposal''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``The Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Administrator, shall exempt from the 
     requirements of paragraph (1), any State that has implemented 
     a documented waste tire abatement program if such program 
     will result in the elimination of tire stockpiles by 1997.''.
       (f) Alternative Application.--Section 1038(d) of such Act 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Alternative applications.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State may for any year meet up to \1/
     2\ of the minimum utilization requirement established by 
     paragraph (1) (excluding any deduction a State may take 
     pursuant to subsection (c)) by using an equivalent amount of 
     recycled rubber for alternative applications, other than 
     making asphalt pavement, if--
       ``(i) the State certifies that the alternative application 
     does not present a threat to safety, human health, or the 
     environment; and
       ``(ii) it is demonstrated that such alternative 
     applications provide equal or enhanced engineering benefits.
       ``(B) Guidelines.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Administrator, shall issue guidelines with respect to 
     compliance with alternative applications under the conditions 
     set forth in clauses (i) and (ii).''.
       (g) Definitions.--Section 1038(e) of such Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) in paragraph (2) by inserting before ``taken'' the 
     following: ``(other than tire buffings defined as a byproduct 
     of the retreading industry) or any products produced from the 
     processing of whole scrap tires or tire materials''.
       (3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) the term `alternative applications' means uses of 
     recycled rubber in such civil engineering applications such 
     as noise and safety barriers, other safety hardware, fences, 
     soil retaining walls, slope stabilization measures, subgrade 
     insulation, and lightweight fill, where the product or 
     material containing recycled rubber provides a benefit to the 
     highway construction and is left in place as a result of the 
     highway construction; such term does not apply to products or 
     materials, such as traffic cones or vehicles, which are used 
     only temporarily in construction of the highway;
       ``(4) the term `Administrator' means the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency; and
       ``(5) the term `State' has the meaning such term has under 
     section 101 of title 23, United States Code.''.

     SEC. 109. WORK ZONE SAFETY.

       Section 1051 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 401 note) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``technologies and services,'' after 
     ``appurtenances,'';
       (2) by inserting ``training,'' after ``traffic control 
     plans,''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The 
     Secretary shall annually review, and provide to State and 
     local governments, information and recommendations concerning 
     safety practices that can enhance safety at highway 
     construction sites, including information relating to new 
     safety technologies, services, traffic control plans, 
     training, and work zone-related bidding practices. The 
     Secretary is directed to develop within the program a process 
     for assuring that, for each project, there will be a person 
     trained and certified who will have the responsibility and 
     authority for assuring that the provisions of the traffic 
     control plan and other safety aspects of the work zone are 
     effectively administered.''.

     SEC. 110. CORRECTED PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--The purpose of this section is to provide 
     assistance for certain highway projects in order to correct 
     errors and omissions in the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991.
       (b) Authorization of Projects.--The Secretary is authorized 
     to carry out the projects described in this subsection. There 
     is authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust 
     Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) for fiscal year 
     1995 to carry out each such project the amount listed for 
     each such project:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Amount 
          City/State                       Projects                in   
                                                                millions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. North Minnesota............  Construction and                        
                                 reconstruction of Forest               
                                 Highway 11 connecting Aurora-          
                                 Hoyt Lakes and Silver Bay, MN       8.5
2. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Reconstruction of the Old               
                                 Delaware Avenue Service Road.       1.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (c) Federal Share.--The Federal share payable on account of 
     any project under this section shall be 80 percent of the 
     cost thereof.
       (d) Delegation to States.--Subject to the provisions of 
     title 23, United States Code, the Secretary shall delegate 
     responsibility for construction of a project or projects 
     under this section to the State in which such project or 
     projects are located upon request of such State.
       (e) Advance Construction.--When a State which has been 
     delegated responsibility for construction of a project under 
     this section--
       (1) has obligated all funds allocated under this section 
     for construction of such project; and
       (2) proceeds to construct such project without the aid of 
     Federal funds in accordance with all procedures and all 
     requirements applicable to such project, except insofar as 
     such procedures and requirements limit the State to the 
     construction of projects with the aid of Federal funds 
     previously allocated to it;

     the Secretary, upon the approval of the application of a 
     State, shall pay to the State the Federal share of the cost 
     of construction of the project when additional funds are 
     allocated for such project under this section.
       (f) Applicability of Title 23.--Funds authorized by this 
     section shall be available for obligation in the same manner 
     as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 
     23, United States Code, except that the Federal share of the 
     cost of any project under this section shall be determined in 
     accordance with this section and such funds shall remain 
     available until expended. Funds authorized by this section 
     shall not be subject to any obligation limitation.

     SEC. 111. RESCISSIONS.

       (a) Rescissions.--Effective October 1, 1994, the following 
     unobligated balances on September 30, 1994, of funds made 
     available for the following provisions are hereby rescinded:
       (1) $78,993.92 made available by section 131(c) of the 
     Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982.
       (2) $26,500,000 made available by section 404(a)(2) of the 
     Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982.
       (3) $1,500,000 made available by section 106(a)(1) of the 
     Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act 
     of 1987.
       (4) $942,249 made available for section 149(a)(66) of the 
     Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act 
     of 1987.
       (5) $376,194.94 made available for section 149(a)(111)(C) 
     of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation 
     Assistance Act of 1987.
       (6) $36,979.05 made available for section 149(a)(111)(J) of 
     the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance 
     Act of 1987.
       (7) $34,281.53 made available for section 149(a)(111)(K) of 
     the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance 
     Act of 1987.
       (8) $258,131.85 made available for section 149(a)(111)(L) 
     of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation 
     Assistance Act of 1987.
       (9) $446,768 made available for section 149(a)(92) of the 
     Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act 
     of 1987.
       (10) $2,058,323 made available for section 149(a)(94) of 
     the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance 
     Act of 1987.
       (11) $52,834 made available for section 149(a)(95) of the 
     Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act 
     of 1987.
       (12) $427,340 made available for section 149(a)(99) of the 
     Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act 
     of 1987.
       (13) $3,559,837 made available for section 149(a)(35) of 
     the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance 
     Act of 1987.
       (14) $797,800 made available for section 149(a)(100) of the 
     Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act 
     of 1987.
       (15) $55.43 made available by section 149(c)(3) of the 
     Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act 
     of 1987.
       (16) $49,700,000 made available by section 1012(b)(6) of 
     the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
       (17) $29,300,000 made available by section 1003(a)(7) of 
     the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
       (18) $150,000,000 made available by section 1036(d)(1)(A) 
     of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1991.
       (19) $1,500,000 made available by section 1036(d)(1)(B) of 
     the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
       (20) $10,800,000 made available by section 21(a)(1) of the 
     Federal Transit Act.
       (b) Reductions in Authorized Amounts.--Section 
     1036(d)(1)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 1986) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$100,000,000'' the second place it 
     appears and inserting ``$50,000,000''; and
       (2) by striking ``$125,000,000'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``$62,500,000''.

     SEC. 112. ADDITIONAL PROJECTS.

       (a) Authorization of Projects.--The Secretary is authorized 
     to carry out the projects described in this subsection. There 
     is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 1995, 1996, 
     and 1997 to carry out each such project the amounts listed 
     for each such project:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Authorization               
                                                                                     in millions   Authorization
                                                                                     from highway   in millions 
                 State                                 Project name                   trust fund    from general
                                                                                     (other than    fund of the 
                                                                                     mass transit     Treasury  
                                                                                       account)                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.Alabama.............................  Birmingham Northern Beltline..............                        2.900 
2.Alabama.............................  Black Warrior River Bridge Study..........                        0.100 
3.Alabama.............................  I-759 Extension...........................                       20.000 
4.Alabama.............................  AL182/1-10 Evacuation Connector                                   4.000 
                                         Improvements.                                                          
5.Alabama.............................  Patton Island Bridge Construction.........         9.000                
6.Alabama.............................  Montgomery Outer Loop Beltway.............                        3.000 
7.Arizona.............................  Gila River Crossing.......................         6.000                
8.Arizona.............................  US93 Upgrade: Kingman to Lake Mead........                        4.000 
9.Arizona.............................  Veterans Memorial Overpass................                        5.000 
10.Arkansas...........................  US71 Upgrade: Alma to Louisiana Border....                        3.000 
11.Arkansas...........................  US71 Upgrade: I-40 to Fayetteville........         1.500          2.000 
12.Arkansas...........................  US71 Upgrade: Alma to Mena................         2.000                
13.Arkansas...........................  Lake Bull Shoals Bridge...................         0.400                
14.Arkansas...........................  Van Buren Regional Intermodal Facility....         0.100                
15.Arkansas...........................  US63 Bypass Upgrade, Jonesboro............                        5.000 
16.Arkansas...........................  Conway Bypass Study and Design............                        3.000 
17.California.........................  CA84/I-580 Interchange Construction.......         4.000                
18.California.........................  CA4 Freeway Expansion, Pittsburg..........                        2.000 
19.California.........................  Galena Street Improvements/I-15                                   3.000 
                                         Interchange Construction.                                              
20.California.........................  CA56 Extension: I-5 to I-15...............                        3.000 
21.California.........................  Stocker Street/La Cienega Interchange.....                        7.100 
22.California.........................  South Lake Tahoe Loop Road Reconfiguration                        2.000 
23.California.........................  Bristol Street Improvement Project........                        3.000 
24.California.........................  CA30 Extension/Gap Closure................         2.000          5.000 
25.California.........................  CA87 Corridor Construction................         7.000                
26.California.........................  CA113 Railroad Grade Separation...........                        5.240 
27.California.........................  Third Feather River Bridge................         1.500                
28.California.........................  I-5/Highway 99W Interchange...............         0.500                
29.California.........................  CA113/I-5 Interchange and Improvements....                        0.500 
30.California.........................  CA905 Congestion Mitigation...............         4.000          5.000 
31.California.........................  CA119/US101/Rice Avenue Interchange                               1.000 
                                         Upgrade.                                                               
32.California.........................  Humboldt Bay Port Access Enhancement......        10.000                
33.California.........................  CA7 Improvements: CA98 to I-8.............                        2.000 
34.California.........................  Ontario Airport Ground Access.............         4.000                
35.California.........................  CA71 Planning and Design, Riverside County                        2.000 
36.California.........................  CA71 Interchange, Brea....................                        0.950 
37.California.........................  CA41 Expansion............................                        3.000 
38.California.........................  I-15 Widening: Victorville to Barstow.....         2.000         14.000 
39.California.........................  I-15 Access, George Air Force Base........                        1.000 
40.California.........................  Arden-Garden Connector....................                        6.000 
41.California.........................  CA126 Improvements: I-5 to McBean Parkway.         4.000                
42.California.........................  CA138-Avenue P-8 Improvements: CA14 to                            2.000 
                                         50th St, E.                                                            
43.California.........................  CA4 Upgrade...............................        19.000                
44.California.........................  Mare Island Access Study..................                        1.000 
45.California.........................  CA237--Maude Avenue/Middlefield Road              13.500                
                                         Interchange.                                                           
46.California.........................  I-205 Widening: I-580 to I-5..............                        3.000 
47.California.........................  I-710/Firestone Boulevard Interchange.....                        5.800 
48.California.........................  CA58 Upgrade, Bakersfield.................         2.000          2.500 
49.California.........................  CA178 Crosstown Corridor: CA 178 to CA99..         2.000          2.500 
50.California.........................  I-5 Capacity Enhancement..................                        9.400 
51.California.........................  Alameda Corridor..........................         4.000          5.000 
52.California.........................  Arbor Vitae Street Expansion..............                        4.000 
53.California.........................  Pacific Coast Highway Palisades Bluff                             5.000 
                                         Stabilization.                                                         
54.California.........................  US101--Sonoma County Congestion Relief....                        4.000 
55.California.........................  US101--Marin County HOV Lanes.............                        1.000 
56.Colorado...........................  Powers Boulevard Corridor.................                        1.000 
57.Colorado...........................  120th Avenue Improvements.................         5.500                
58.Connecticut........................  Regional Transportation Center                                    6.000 
                                         Improvements, Norwich.                                                 
59.Connecticut........................  Hartford Riverfront Access................                        3.000 
60.Connecticut........................  Seaview Avenue Reconstruction.............                        2.000 
61.District of Columbia...............  Constitution Avenue Rehabilitation........         3.000                
62.District of Columbia...............  Independence Avenue Rehabilitation........         0.590                
63.District of Columbia...............  First Street Rehabilitation...............         0.260                
64.Florida............................  Fuller--Warren Bridge.....................         2.000         19.000 
65.Florida............................  Jacksonville Airport Access Road..........                        2.000 
66.Florida............................  Midpoint Bridge and Corridor..............         2.000          5.000 
67.Florida............................  FL7/US441 Widening........................                        5.000 
68.Florida............................  I-4/Greeneway Interchange.................         4.000          2.000 
69.Florida............................  US301/University Parkway Intersection                             2.000 
                                         Upgrade.                                                               
70.Florida............................  Palm Beach Port Road Relocations..........         0.265          5.000 
71.Florida............................  Eller Drive/I-595 Improvements............         2.600                
72.Florida............................  Northeast Dade Bike Path..................         1.135                
73.Georgia............................  GA61 Connector with I-20..................                        7.200 
74.Georgia............................  Appalachian Scenic Parkway................                        4.000 
75.Georgia............................  GA92 Corridor Upgrade, Cherokee County....         1.700         20.000 
76.Georgia............................  GA9 Widening, Roswell.....................         8.300                
77.Georgia............................  Sidney-Lanier Bridge Reconstruction.......         4.000          6.000 
78.Georgia............................  University Center Pedestrian Corridor,                           12.960 
                                         Atlanta.                                                               
79.Hawaii.............................  Kuakini Street Improvements...............                        1.500 
80.Illinois...........................  Sauget Road Extension.....................         3.100          0.818 
81.Illinois...........................  West Boulevard Extension..................         0.900                
82.Illinois...........................  IL159 Relocation, Edwardsville............                        6.000 
83.Illinois...........................  US67/IL267 Improvements...................                        4.000 
84.Illinois...........................  Centennial Bridge Improvements............                        1.000 
85.Illinois...........................  Business Loop 55 Widening: I-55 to                 5.000                
                                         Clearwater Ave.                                                        
86.Illinois...........................  Central Avenue Bypass, Chicago............        15.000                
87.Illinois...........................  US20 Improvements: East Dubuque to Galena.                        2.000 
88.Illinois...........................  Peoria--Chicago Highway...................         3.000          2.000 
89.Illinois...........................  Springfield Veterans Parkway..............         2.000          2.000 
90.Illinois...........................  Grand View Drive Improvements.............                        3.000 
91.Illinois...........................  Heartland Riverfront Project..............                        2.000 
92.Illinois...........................  US67: Macomb to Jacksonville..............                        1.000 
93.Illinois...........................  Brush Creek Connector.....................         3.000                
94.Illinois...........................  Richton Road Improvements, Crete..........         1.720                
95.Illinois...........................  Steger Roadway Improvements, Steger.......         0.720                
96.Illinois...........................  Polk Avenue Extension, Richton Park.......         0.336                
97.Illinois...........................  Minooka Street Improvements, Minooka......         0.334                
98.Illinois...........................  Rathje Road Improvements, Peotone.........         0.320                
99.Illinois...........................  Main Street Improvements, Ottawa..........         0.312                
100.Illinois..........................  Otter Creek Road Improvements, Streator...         0.270                
101.Indiana...........................  96th Street Upgrade.......................         2.000          5.000 
102.Indiana...........................  Hoosier Heartland Corridor: Ft. Wayne to                          3.000 
                                         Lafayette.                                                             
103.Indiana...........................  I-265 Extension...........................                       10.000 
104.Indiana...........................  US231 Reconstruction......................                       10.000 
105.Indiana...........................  Evansville--Bloomington Corridor..........                        5.000 
106.Indiana...........................  Lafayette Rail Relocation.................         5.000         18.500 
107.Indiana...........................  Six Points Road Interchange...............                        1.500 
108.Indiana...........................  City of Columbus ``Front Door''...........                        8.000 
109.Indiana...........................  IN67 Improvements.........................                        1.000 
110.Indiana...........................  East Chicago Marine Access Road...........                        4.834 
111.Indiana...........................  Lake Shore Drive Extension Study..........                        0.600 
112.Iowa..............................  I-29 Corridor Improvements, Sioux City....                        3.000 
113.Iowa..............................  IA330: Marshalltown to Des Moines.........                        6.000 
114.Iowa..............................  Burlington Iowa Southern Arterial                  0.880                
                                         Connector.                                                             
115.Iowa..............................  US 63: Bremer County to Minnesota Border..                        3.000 
116.Iowa..............................  IA5 Relocation............................                       10.000 
117.Kentucky..........................  US231 Relocation..........................         5.000                
118.Kentucky..........................  US27 Improvements.........................         1.000          3.000 
119.Kentucky..........................  KY114 Widening: Salyersville to US23......         1.000          5.000 
120.Louisiana.........................  I-10/I-12 BAton Rouge Bypass..............                        1.000 
121.Louisiana.........................  I-210/Nelson Access Road..................         3.000                
122.Louisiana.........................  I-10: St. Charles Parish Line to Tulane            2.000          3.000 
                                         Avenue.                                                                
123.Maryland..........................  MD5/MD373 Interchange.....................                       10.000 
124.Maryland..........................  MD235 Improvements........................                        5.000 
125.Maryland..........................  MD237 Improvements........................         3.882                
126.Maryland..........................  Beltway Advanced Traffic Monitoring.......                        3.000 
127.Massachusetts.....................  Lincoln Square, Southbridge Street                 2.400                
                                         Gateways.                                                              
128.Massachusetts.....................  I-90/MA146 Reconstruction.................         1.600                
129.Massachusetts.....................  Franklin County Bikeway...................                        2.250 
130.Michigan..........................  US23 Expansion............................         3.000                
131.Michigan..........................  Bay City Road Interchange.................                        3.000 
132.Michigan..........................  M-59 Corridor.............................                       20.000 
133.Michigan..........................  Highway Safety Improvements...............                       20.000 
134.Michigan..........................  Ambassador Bridge Facilities..............        10.000                
135.Michigan..........................  Monroe Rail Consolidation.................                       10.000 
136.Michigan..........................  Detroit Airport Access Road...............                        5.000 
137.Michigan..........................  US31 Improvements: Holland to Grand Haven.         1.200                
138.Michigan..........................  M-6: Grand Rapids South Beltline                   6.800          4.000 
                                         Construction.                                                          
139.Michigan..........................  M-102/Grand River Interchange Redesign....                        4.000 
140.Michigan..........................  McClellan Avenue..........................                        2.300 
141.Michigan..........................  US31 Upgrade, Berrien County..............         2.000          5.000 
142.Minnesota.........................  TH610-Crosstown Expressway................         1.000          3.000 
143.Minnesota.........................  Trunk Highway 33 Improvements.............         9.680                
144.Minnesota.........................  34th Street Corridor......................                        2.000 
145.Minnesota.........................  TH212 Construction........................                        3.000 
146.Minnesota.........................  77th Street Improvements..................         5.000         10.000 
147.Minnesota.........................  Wabasha Street Bridge Replacement.........         9.000         11.000 
148.Mississippi.......................  Norrell Road Interchange..................         3.000                
149.Missouri..........................  Lindbergh Boulevard Relocation............                        5.000 
150.Missouri..........................  St. Joseph Loop Expressway................         8.300                
151.Missouri..........................  Chouteau Bridge Replacement...............                        9.000 
152.Missouri..........................  Cape Girardeau Bridge Replacement.........         6.250          5.000 
153.Missouri..........................  MO21 Upgrade..............................                       14.400 
154.Missouri..........................  MO Highway M Relocation...................         4.000                
155.Missouri..........................  I-255/MO231 Intersection..................                        1.600 
156.Missouri..........................  Hannibal Bridge Replacement...............                        1.000 
157.Montana...........................  MT323 Upgrade.............................                        5.000 
158.Montana...........................  Belgrade/I-90 Interchange.................         2.110                
159.Nebraska..........................  Niobrara, NE/Springfield, SD Bridge.......                        3.000 
160.Nebraska..........................  27th Street and Highway 2 Pedestrian                              0.413 
                                         Bridge.                                                                
161.Nebraska..........................  South and East Beltway Study, Lincoln.....                        0.400 
162.Nevada............................  Spring Mountain I-15 Interchange..........                        5.000 
163.Nevada............................  I-80/Sparks Road Pyramid Interchange......         1.000          4.000 
164.New Hampshire.....................  Second Nashua River Crossing..............         3.000          1.500 
165.New Hampshire.....................  Manchester Airport Access Road                     5.000                
                                         Construction.                                                          
166.New Jersey........................  I-287 Improvements: I-78 to US22..........         4.000                
167.New Jersey........................  NJ21/McCarter Highway Improvements........         5.000                
168.New Jersey........................  NJ17/NJ4 Interchange, Paramus.............                        3.000 
169.New Mexico........................  Santa Fe Relief Route.....................                        5.000 
170.New Mexico........................  Sunport Boulevard East Corrdior...........                        1.400 
171.New Mexico........................  US70/Las Cruces Frontage Road System......                        3.000 
172.New York..........................  Utica-Rome Expressway.....................         6.250          5.000 
173.New York..........................  Westchester/Putnam Intelligent Vehicle                            2.000 
                                         Highway Systems.                                                       
174.New York..........................  NY60 Reconstruction, Ellicott.............                        3.000 
175.New York..........................  Quay Street Extension, Niagara Falls......                        2.240 
176.New York..........................  Delaware Street Reconstruction, Tonawanda.                        2.100 
177.New York..........................  Williams Road Widening, Wheatfield........                        1.060 
178.New York..........................  Lockport Corridor Study, Erie and Niagara                         0.800 
                                         Counties.                                                              
179.New York..........................  Rochester-Brockport Access Study..........                        0.800 
180.New York..........................  NY531 Extension Study: Ogden to Sweden....                        0.400 
181.New York..........................  Jericho Turnpike Improvements: New York            4.000          2.000 
                                         City to Herricks Road.                                                 
182.New York..........................  New York Thruway Upgrade..................                        5.000 
183.New York..........................  US9 Reconstruction, Plattsburgh...........                        1.750 
184.New York..........................  International Bridge Feasibility Study....                         .250 
185.New York..........................  New York Intermodal Facilities Study......         1.000                
186.New York..........................  NY277 Reconstruction, Cheektowaga.........         4.000                
187.New York..........................  Main Street Bascule Bridge................                        2.000 
188.New York..........................  Bronx/North Manhattan Intelligent Vehicle                         6.480 
                                         Highway System.                                                        
189.New York..........................  Latta Road Improvements, Monroe County....         6.000                
190.New York..........................  Baldwinsville Bypass......................                        5.000 
191.North Carolina....................  US220 Construction........................                        3.000 
192.North Carolina....................  US17 Bridge Replacement...................                        5.000 
193.North Carolina....................  Charlotte Beltway East Segment............                        2.000 
194.North Carolina....................  US64 Improvements.........................                       10.000 
195.North Carolina....................  US74 Improvements.........................                       10.000 
196.North Carolina....................  US19/23 Upgrade...........................                        1.000 
197.North Carolina....................  Southern Charlotte Outer Loop.............                        5.000 
198.Ohio..............................  Lorain Central Corridor...................                        5.000 
199.Ohio..............................  US23-Fostoria Bypass......................                        3.000 
200.Ohio..............................  US22/US33-Lancaster Bypass................         1.000          5.800 
201.Ohio..............................  Boston Road Interchange...................                        2.000 
202.Ohio..............................  Cleveland Gateway Project.................                        1.000 
203.Ohio..............................  New Intermodal Terminal, Fearing Boulevard                        5.000 
204.Ohio..............................  US30: OH235 to US68.......................                        4.000 
205.Ohio..............................  Alum Creek Drive Improvements.............         2.000          4.000 
206.Ohio..............................  US30 Widening: Wooster to Riceland........         3.400         10.000 
207.Ohio..............................  Mt. Vernon to I-71 Connector Study........         1.600                
208.Ohio..............................  OH43 Improvements.........................                        3.920 
209.Ohio..............................  Cuyahoga River Bridge, Cleveland..........                        4.320 
210.Ohio..............................  Cleveland Pedestrian Walkway..............                        1.440 
211.Ohio..............................  Pomeroy to Ravenswood Access Improvements.                        8.900 
212.Ohio..............................  Youngstown-Hubbard Expressway.............        10.000                
213.Oklahoma..........................  I-44 Widening: Arkansas River to Yale              6.250          5.000 
                                         Avenue.                                                                
214.Oregon............................  Jordon Cove Road Safety Improvements......         0.529                
215.Oregon............................  Salem Bypass Improvements.................                        4.471 
216.Oregon............................  Columbia Slough Intermodal Projects.......                        5.000 
217.Pennsylvania......................  Philadelphia Traffic Signal Controllers...         1.800                
218.Pennsylvania......................  Philadelphia Bicycle Network..............         0.472                
219.Pennsylvania......................  Tioga Marine Terminal.....................         8.000                
220.Pennsylvania......................  US15 Upgrade--Tioga County................         5.952                
221.Pennsylvania......................  US 219 Truck Route--Osterhout Street......         2.880                
222.Pennsylvania......................  PA948 Improvements, Forest County.........         1.168                
223.Pennsylvania......................  Pennsylvania Pier 98, Philadelphia........                        1.000 
224.Pennsylvania......................  PA2001 Improvements, Pike County..........         4.800          0.300 
225.Pennsylvania......................  PA14 Improvements, Bradford County........                        4.800 
226.Pennsylvania......................  PA3011 Improvements, Scranton.............                        3.500 
227.Pennsylvania......................  PA1069 Widening, Athens...................         0.200          1.400 
228.Pennsylvania......................  US219 Improvements, Cambria County........        10.000                
229.Pennsylvania......................  PA56 Improvements: Johnstown to Cessna....         8.000                
230.Pennsylvania......................  US 22--Section B07 Reconstruction.........                        8.000 
231.Pennsylvania......................  US219 Improvements: Carrolltown to I-80...         1.000          2.000 
232.Rhode Island......................  Davisville Bridges........................                        5.000 
233.South Carolina....................  US17 Bridges..............................         2.485          1.515 
234.South Carolina....................  US301 Improvements........................         1.515                
235.South Dakota......................  Vermillion Bridge.........................                        4.600 
236.Tennessee.........................  Harding Place Extension...................         5.000                
237.Tennessee.........................  Gay Street Bridge Rehabilitation..........         5.000          0.760 
238.Tennessee.........................  Foothills Parkway--Missing Link...........         1.250          9.240 
239.Tennessee.........................  Old Nashville Highway Bridge..............                        4.000 
240.Tennessee.........................  Murfreesboro Alternative Transportation                           1.000 
                                         System.                                                                
241.Tennessee.........................  I-81 Interchange Construction.............         1.200                
242.Tennessee.........................  Memphis Outer Loop Beltway................                        3.000 
243.Texas.............................  TX121 Upgrade Study.......................         2.500                
244.Texas.............................  Border Highway Extension..................                       10.000 
245.Texas.............................  NASA Road 1 Upgrade.......................         4.500         15.000 
246.Texas.............................  US59 Upgrade, Ft. Bend County.............         0.500                
247.Texas.............................  US67 Widening.............................         5.416                
248.Texas.............................  Loop 12 Widening..........................                        2.200 
249.Texas.............................  TX36 Improvements.........................         5.000                
250.Texas.............................  Brownsville Navigation District Access....                        1.680 
251.Texas.............................  Brownsville 6th & 7th Streets Improvements                        1.600 
252.Utah..............................  US89 Upgrade..............................         4.000                
253.Utah..............................  I-15/University Avenue Interchange........                        3.000 
254.Utah..............................  20th East Highway Project.................         6.000                
255.Utah..............................  I-15 Corridor Improvements, Salt Lake                             6.000 
                                         County.                                                                
256.Virgin Islands....................  Christiansted Bypass......................         5.000                
257.Virginia..........................  Coleman Bridge Expansion..................                        2.000 
258.Virginia..........................  I-95/Outer Connector/VA627 Interchange....                        2.000 
259.Virginia..........................  Coalfields Expressway.....................         5.000                
260.Virginia..........................  VA123 Philadelphia, Northern Virginia.....        10.000                
261.Virginia..........................  Fairfax County Parkway/Franconia-                                 5.000 
                                         Springfield Parkway.                                                   
262.Virginia..........................  I-81 to I-40 ``I-83'' Connector...........                        5.000 
263.Virginia..........................  Pinners Point Connector...................                        4.400 
264.Virginia..........................  S. Battlefield Boulevard/VA168............                        5.000 
265.Virginia..........................  14th Street Bridge Lane Addition..........         5.000          7.000 
266.Washington........................  I-5/196th Street Interchange..............         3.336                
267.Washington........................  WA305 Improvements........................                        0.672 
268.Washington........................  Port Angeles Multi-Model Center...........                        6.400 
269.Washington........................  WA18 Improvements: 312th Way to Maple              4.000          1.000 
                                         Valley.                                                                
270.Washington........................  I-405/Northeast 8th Street Interchange....                        1.000 
271.Washington........................  US12 Improvements.........................                        9.000 
272.Washington........................  US395 Improvements........................                        9.000 
273.Washington........................  Chelan/Douglas Transportation Center......                        2.000 
274.Washington........................  Mill Plain Extension......................                        5.000 
275.West Virginia.....................  Fairmont Riverside Expressway.............        10.000   .............
276.West Virginia.....................  New River Parkway.........................        14.400                
277.Wisconsin.........................  Janesville River Street Realignment.......         3.454                
278.Wisconsin.........................  Main Street Bridge Replacement, Racine....                        2.000 
279.Wisconsin.........................  CTH P Improvements........................         0.480                
280.Wisconsin.........................  WI29 Upgrade..............................        10.000                
281.Wisconsin.........................  Oshkosh Rail Relocation...................         6.000                
282.Wisconsin.........................  US10 Upgrade: Anderson Road to CTH U......         4.000                
283.Wisconsin.........................  US41 Upgrade: Kaukauna to CTH F...........  .............         3.000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (b) Allocation Percentages for HTF Funds.--65.86 percent of 
     the amount allocated by subsection (a) from the Highway Trust 
     Fund for each project authorized by subsection (a) shall be 
     available for obligation in fiscal year 1995. 17.07 percent 
     of such amount shall be available for obligation in each of 
     fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
       (c) Appropriations Cap.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury by 
     subsection (a), not more than $300,000,000 may be 
     appropriated in any single fiscal year.
       (d) Federal Share.--The Federal share payable on account of 
     any project under this section shall be 80 percent of the 
     cost thereof.
       (e) Delegation to States.--Subject to the provisions of 
     title 23, United States Code, the Secretary shall delegate 
     responsibility for construction of a project or projects 
     under this section to the State in which such project or 
     projects are located upon request of such State.
       (f) Advance Construction.--When a State which has been 
     delegated responsibility for construction of a project under 
     this section--
       (1) has obligated all funds allocated under this section 
     for construction of such project; and
       (2) proceeds to construct such project without the aid of 
     Federal funds in accordance with all procedures and all 
     requirements applicable to such project, except insofar as 
     such procedures and requirements limit the State to the 
     construction of projects with the aid of Federal funds 
     previously allocated to it;
     the Secretary, upon the approval of the application of a 
     State, shall pay to the State the Federal share of the cost 
     of construction of the project when additional funds are 
     allocated for such project under this section.
       (g) Applicability of Title 23.--Funds authorized by this 
     section from the Highway Trust Fund shall be available for 
     obligation in the same manner as if such funds were 
     apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, 
     except that the Federal share of the cost of any project 
     under this section shall be determined in accordance with 
     this section and such funds shall remain available until 
     expended. Funds authorized by this section shall not be 
     subject to any obligation limitation.

     SEC. 113. STUDY OF RADIO AND MICROWAVE TECHNOLOGY FOR 
                   COMMERCIAL AND OTHER MOTOR VEHICLES.

       (a) In General.--Section 6057 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2194) is 
     amended by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c) and 
     by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b) Study of Radio and Microwave Technology for 
     Commercial and Other Motor Vehicles.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a research 
     study to develop and evaluate radio and microwave technology 
     for furtherance of safety in commercial and other motor 
     vehicles.
       ``(2) Equipment.--Equipment developed under the study to be 
     conducted under paragraph (1) shall be directed toward, but 
     not limited to, warning drivers of obstructions in a highway 
     or limited visibility conditions caused by snow, rain, fog, 
     or dust.
       ``(3) Safety applications.--In conducting the study under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall determine whether the 
     technology described in paragraph (1) has other safety 
     applications consistent with the goals of this Act.''.
       (b) Funding.--Such section is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Funding.--Of the funds made available in fiscal year 
     1995 to carry out section 6058(b), $500,000 shall be used to 
     conduct the study under subsection (b).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Such section is further 
     amended--
       (1) in the section heading by inserting ``AND OTHER'' after 
     ``COMMERCIAL''; and
       (2) in the heading to subsection (a) by inserting ``of 
     Safety Technology for Commercial Motor Vehicles'' after 
     ``Study''.

     SEC. 114. FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY.

       (a) Federal Line of Credit.--For the purpose of carrying 
     out a demonstration of the construction of public toll roads 
     in Orange County, California, authorized by section 129(d) of 
     title 23, United States Code, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $10,000,000 for the Secretary to enter into an 
     agreement to make a line of credit available, with a 
     principal amount not to exceed $120,000,000 to the public 
     entity or entities with the statutory authority to construct 
     such facilities.
       (b) Effective Period.--The line of credit under this 
     section shall be available for draws during the period 
     beginning on the date of completion of construction and 
     ending on the last day of the tenth calendar year following 
     the date construction of the facilities is completed.
       (c) Purposes.--The line of credit under this section shall 
     be available to pay the costs of extraordinary repair and 
     replacement of the facilities, unexpected Federal or State 
     environmental restrictions, operation and maintenance 
     expenses of the facilities, and debt service on tax-exempt or 
     taxable obligations financing the facilities.
       (d) Limitations.--
       (1) Capital expenditures.--With respect to capital 
     expenditures, draws on the line of credit under this section 
     shall only be made if and to the extent proceeds from the 
     sale of the obligations issued by the public entity or 
     entities which otherwise would be available for such purposes 
     are exhausted, or are otherwise unavailable for the payment 
     of such capital expenditures.
       (2) Expenses.--With respect to expenses, including 
     operation and maintenance expenses and debt service, a draw 
     on the line of credit under this section shall only be made 
     if revenues from toll operations and capitalized interest are 
     insufficient (or are otherwise unavailable) for such 
     purposes.
       (3) Per year.--No more than 10 percent of the total 
     principal amount of the line of credit under this section 
     shall be available for draws in any one year.
       (4) Third party creditor rights.--No third party creditor 
     of the public entity or entities shall have any right against 
     the Federal Government with respect to draws on the line of 
     credit under this section.
       (5) Availability for particular costs.--There is no 
     guaranteed availability of proceeds of the line of credit 
     under this section for the payment of any particular cost of 
     the public entity or entities which might be financed under 
     this section.
       (e) Interest Rate and Repayment Period.--Any draws (except 
     for operation and maintenance expenses) on the line of credit 
     under this section shall accrue interest at the 30-year 
     United States Treasury bond rate beginning on the date such 
     draws are made and shall be repaid in not more than 30 years; 
     except that any draws under the line of credit for operation 
     and maintenance expenses shall accrue interest at the 3-year 
     United States Treasury note rate beginning on the date such 
     draws are made and shall be repaid in not more than 3 years.

     SEC. 115. RAILWAY-HIGHWAY CROSSINGS PROJECT.

       Of the funds appropriated by Public Law 103-122 for 
     railroad-highway crossings projects, $20,000,000 shall be 
     made available for costs, not to exceed 80 percent, of a 
     project to reduce rail-highway conflicts on M-59 near 
     Pontiac, Michigan, and a project on Bristol Road near Flint, 
     Michigan. From the $20,000,000 made available under the 
     preceding sentence, $500,000 shall be made available to 
     improve and upgrade Maple Road at Bishop Airport, Michigan.

     SEC. 116. NEW RIVER PARKWAY, WEST VIRGINIA.

       (a) Priority Consideration.--
       (1) Completion of studies.--The Secretary shall require, as 
     a matter of the highest priority, the completion of all 
     remaining studies associated with the project authorized by 
     section 149(a)(69) of the Surface Transportation and Uniform 
     Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (101 Stat. 191).
       (2) Schedule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Secretary is authorized and directed to establish a 
     schedule--
       (A) for the completion by other Federal agencies of any 
     reviews required by law of such studies; and
       (B) by which the reconciliation of any discrepancies among 
     reviewing Federal agencies must be met.
       (3) Deadline.--The schedule referred to in paragraph (2) 
     shall provide for the project referred to in paragraph (1) to 
     proceed to construction before December 31, 1995.
       (b) Visitors Center.--
       (1) Grants.--The Secretary shall make grants to the 
     Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the 
     National Park Service, for the planning, design, and 
     construction of a visitors center, and such other related 
     facilities as may be determined to be necessary, to 
     facilitate visitor understanding and enjoyment of scenic, 
     historic, cultural, and recreational resources accessible by 
     the New River Parkway, West Virginia, and any related 
     buildings as may be determined to be necessary for the 
     administration of the parkway.
       (2) Site.--The visitors center, related facilities, and 
     buildings referred to in paragraph (1) shall be located at a 
     suitable location on a site for which title is held by the 
     United States in the vicinity of the intersection of the New 
     River Parkway and Interstate Route 64 or along the New River 
     Parkway itself.
       (3) Consultation.--The Director of the National Park 
     Service shall consult with the New River Parkway Authority 
     and the State of West Virginia in the planning, design, and 
     construction of the visitors center, related facilities, and 
     buildings referred to in paragraph (1).
       (4) Funding.--Of the amounts made available pursuant to 
     section 1003(a)(6)(C) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 1919) 
     $1,300,000 for fiscal year 1995 and $1,200,000 for fiscal 
     year 1996 shall be made available for the purposes of 
     carrying out this subsection. Such funds shall remain 
     available until expended.

     SEC. 117. NATIONAL RECREATIONAL TRAILS.

       (a) State Eligibility.--Section 1302(c) of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (33 U.S.C. 1261(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Act'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``part'';
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), respectively; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Sixth year provision.--On and after the date that is 
     5 years after the date of the enactment of this part, a State 
     shall be eligible to receive moneys under this part in a 
     fiscal year only if the State agrees to expend from non-
     Federal sources for carrying out projects under this part an 
     amount equal to 20 percent of the amount received by the 
     State under this part in such fiscal year.''.
       (b) Administrative Costs.--Section 1302(d)(1) of such Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1261(d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``national surveys'' 
     and inserting ``a 1-time national survey'';
       (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (3) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E) 
     and inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) contracting for services with other land management 
     agencies; and''; and
       (4) by adding the end the following:
     ``The 3 percent limitation in the preceding sentence shall 
     not apply to expenditures to pay the cost of conducting the 
     1-time national survey described in subparagraph (C).''.
       (c) Environmental Mitigation.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1302(e) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1261(e)) is amended by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), 
     (7), and (8) as paragraphs (6), (7), (8), and (9), 
     respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (4) the 
     following:
       ``(5) Environmental mitigation.--
       ``(A) Requirement.--To the extent practicable and 
     consistent with other requirements of this section, in 
     complying with paragraph (4), a State shall give priority to 
     project proposals which provide for the redesign, 
     reconstruction, nonroutine maintenance, or relocation of 
     trails in order to mitigate and minimize the impact to the 
     natural environment.
       ``(B) Compliance.--The State shall receive guidance for 
     determining compliance with subparagraph (A) from the 
     recreational trail advisory board satisfying the requirements 
     of subsection (c)(2)(A).''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1302(e)(4) of such Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1261(e)(4)) is amended by striking ``paragraphs 
     (6) and (8)(B)'' and inserting paragraphs ``(7) and (9)(B)''.
       (d) Exclusions.--Section 1302(e)(7) of such Act, as 
     redesignated by subsection (c), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(7) Small state exclusion.--Any State'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(7) Exclusions.--
       ``(A) Small state.--Any State'';
       (2) by moving the text of subparagraph (A), as so 
     designated, 2 ems to the right; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Best interest of a state.--Any State which determines 
     based on trail needs identified in its State Comprehensive 
     Outdoor Recreation Plan that it is in the best interest of 
     the State to be exempt from the requirements of paragraph (4) 
     may apply to the Secretary for such an exemption. Before 
     approving or disapproving an application for such an 
     exemption, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal 
     Register notice of receipt of the application and provide an 
     opportunity for public comment on the application.''.
       (e) Return of Moneys Not Expended.--Section 1302(e)(9) of 
     such Act, as redesignated by subsection (c), is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``the State'' before ``may be exempted''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``and expended or committed'' and all that 
     follows before the period.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1302 of such 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 1261) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit 
     Account) to carry out this section and section 1303 
     $6,000,000 for fiscal year 1995.
       ``(2) Applicability of title 23.--Funds authorized by 
     paragraph (1) shall be available for obligation in the same 
     manner as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code; except that the Federal share 
     of the cost of activities conducted with such funds shall be 
     as provided in this section, such funds shall not be subject 
     to any obligation limitation other than subsection (d)(3), 
     and such funds shall remain available until expended.
       ``(3) Treatment.--Funds authorized by paragraph (1) shall 
     be treated as if such funds were part of the National 
     Recreational Trails Trust Fund for purposes of making 
     allocations to the States under subsection (d).''.
       (g) Advisory Committee.--Section 1303 of such Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1262) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b) by striking ``11 members'' and 
     inserting ``12 members'';
       (2) in subsection (b) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), 
     and (4) as paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively, and by 
     inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) 1 member appointed by the Secretary representing 
     individuals with disabilities;''.

     SEC. 118. COAL HERITAGE.

       (a) Grants.--The Secretary shall make grants to the State 
     of West Virginia for the purpose of erecting signs or other 
     informational devices depicting Coal Heritage along public 
     roads identified as ``Heritage Tour Routes'' and ``Tour Route 
     Connectors'' on the map entitled ``Alternative Concept C'' in 
     the the study entitled ``A Coal Mining Heritage Study: 
     Southern West Virginia'' (1993, United States Department of 
     the Interior, National Park Service) and along additional 
     public roads which provide access to the interpretive sites 
     and areas identified on such map. Such signs or devices shall 
     be devised by the West Virginia Division of Culture and 
     History with the concurrence of the West Virginia Division of 
     Highways and shall be subject to public comment.
       (b) Technical Assistance.--With respect to areas along the 
     roads referred to in subsection (a) which are administered by 
     Federal, State, local, or nonprofit entities, the Secretary 
     may, pursuant to cooperative agreements with such entities 
     and in consultation with the State of West Virginia, provide 
     technical assistance in the development of interpretive 
     devices and information in order to contribute to public 
     appreciation of the historical, cultural, natural, scenic, 
     and recreational sites along such roads.
       (c) Funding.--Of amounts made available pursuant to section 
     1047(d) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
     Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 1998), there shall be available 
     $1,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1995 and 
     1996 for the purposes of carrying out this section. Such sums 
     shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 119. LIMITATIONS ON FUNDING OF OPERATING ASSISTANCE.

       Section 9(k)(2) of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App. 
     1607a(k)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as 
     subparagraphs (E) and (F), respectively;
       (2) in subparagraph (E), as redesignated by paragraph (1), 
     by inserting ``Increase.--'' before ``Beginning'';
       (3) in subparagraph (F), as redesignated by paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``Consumer price index defined.--'' before 
     ``As''; and
       (B) by striking ``(B)'' and inserting ``(E)'';
       (4) by moving subparagraphs (E) and (F), as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1), 4 ems to the right; and
       (5) by striking ``(2)'' and subparagraph (A) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(2) Limitations on funding of operating assistance.--
       ``(A) In general.--The amount of funds apportioned under 
     this section which may be used for operating assistance shall 
     not exceed 80 percent of the amount of funds apportioned in 
     fiscal year 1982 under paragraphs (1)(A), (2)(A), and (3)(A) 
     of section 5(a) of this Act to an urbanized area with a 
     population of 1,000,000 or more, 90 percent of funds so 
     apportioned to an urbanized area with a population of 200,000 
     or more and less than 1,000,000 population; and 95 percent of 
     funds so apportioned to an urbanized area of less than 
     200,000 population. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, 
     an urbanized area that first became an urbanized area under 
     the 1980 census or thereafter may use each fiscal year for 
     operating assistance not to exceed an amount equal to \2/3\ 
     of its apportionment during the first full year it received 
     funds under this section.
       ``(B) Special rule for certain urbanized areas with reduced 
     populations.--If an urbanized area had a population under the 
     1980 decennial census of the United States of more than 
     1,000,000 and has a population under the 1990 decennial 
     census of less than 1,000,000, the maximum percentage of 
     funds which may be used for operating assistance for purposes 
     of subparagraph (A) shall be 90 percent of the amount of 
     funds apportioned in fiscal year 1982 under such paragraphs 
     (1)(A), (2)(A), and (3)(A) to such area.
       ``(C) Special rule for urbanized areas of less than 
     200,000.--If an urbanized area had a population under the 
     1990 decennial census of the United States of less than 
     200,000, 100 percent of the funds apportioned to such area 
     under this section for each of fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 
     1997 may be used for operating assistance, notwithstanding 
     any limitation otherwise imposed on operating assistance.
       ``(D) Offset.--The amount of funds apportioned under this 
     section to each urbanized area with a population of 200,000 
     or more in each of fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997 which 
     may be used for operating assistance but for this 
     subparagraph shall be reduced by the amount determined by 
     multiplying--
       ``(i) the aggregate amount of increases of operating 
     assistance under subparagraph (C) in such fiscal year; by
       ``(ii) the quotient determined by dividing--

       ``(I) the amount of funds apportioned under this section to 
     such area in such fiscal year which may be used for operating 
     assistance but for this subparagraph; by
       ``(II) the aggregate amount of funds apportioned to all 
     urbanized areas with a population of 200,000 or more under 
     this section in such fiscal year but for this subparagraph 
     which may be used for operating assistance.''.

     SEC. 120. INTERCITY BUS TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Basic Program.--Section 18(i)(1) of the Federal Transit 
     Act (49 U.S.C. App. 1614(i)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' before ``15 percent'';
       (2) by inserting ``, and 7.5 percent of such amounts in 
     fiscal year 1995'' after ``1994''; and
       (3) by inserting after ``demonstration projects,'' the 
     following: ``the purchase of accessibility devices,''.
       (b) Discretionary Program.--Section 3 of such Act (49 
     U.S.C. App. 1602) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(o) Intercity Bus Transportation.--Of the amounts made 
     available by subsection (k)(1)(C) in each fiscal year 
     beginning after September 30, 1994, the Secretary shall make 
     to operators of intercity bus transportation systems capital 
     grants to support such systems, including the purchase of 
     accessibility devices, an amount equal to 7.5 percent of the 
     amounts made available under section 18 in such fiscal year. 
     The Federal grant for any project under this subsection shall 
     be 80 percent of the net project cost; except that the 
     Federal grant for the purchase of accessibility devices under 
     this subsection shall be 90 percent of the net project 
     cost.''.

     SEC. 121. REPEALS OF EXISTING PROJECTS.

       (a) Long Beach Metro Link Fixed Rail Project.--Section 
     3035(o) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
     Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2131) is repealed.
       (b) Honolulu Rapid Transit Project.--Section 3035(ww) of 
     such Act (105 Stat. 2136) is repealed.

     SEC. 122. MISCELLANEOUS TRANSIT PROJECTS.

       (a) Portland Westside Light Rail Project.--Section 3035(b) 
     of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1991 (105 Stat. 2129) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1) In general.--'' after ``Westside 
     Light Rail Project.--''
       (2) by striking the last sentence;
       (3) by indenting paragraph (1) and moving it 2 ems to the 
     right; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Amendment.--
       ``(A) Negotiation.--Within 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall negotiate 
     and sign an amendment to the Westside Light Rail Project 
     multiyear grant agreement authorized under paragraph (1) with 
     the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon 
     to carry out the final design and construction of the locally 
     preferred alternative for the Hillsboro extension, systems 
     related costs as authorized in Public Law 102-240, and 
     acquisition of low floor light rail vehicles, as set forth in 
     Public Law 102-388.
       ``(B) Advance construction; contingent commitment.--The 
     amendment negotiated under this paragraph shall provide for 
     the use of advance construction authority under section 3(l) 
     of the Federal Transit Act and for the use of contingent 
     commitment authority under section 3(a)(4)(C) of the Federal 
     Transit Act for the activities set forth in subparagraph (A) 
     for an amount equivalent to the Federal share authorized 
     under section 3 of the Federal Transit Act for each specific 
     activity; except that the Federal share of the cost of the 
     final design and construction of the Hillsboro extension 
     shall not exceed \1/3\.
       ``(C) Special rule for advance construction.--In the event 
     that the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of 
     Oregon uses advance construction authority under this 
     paragraph, the Secretary shall convert that authority into a 
     grant and shall reimburse the Tri-County Metropolitan 
     Transportation District of Oregon from funds made available 
     under section 3 of the Federal Transit Act in fiscal years 
     1998 and 1999 for the Federal share of the amounts expended 
     (plus any eligible financing costs).
       ``(D) Integrated project financing plan.--The amendment 
     negotiated under this paragraph shall also include an 
     integrated project financing plan to permit the 
     interchangeable use of Federal funds for activities set forth 
     in paragraph (1) and subparagraph (A) to maintain the entire 
     project construction schedule.
       ``(3) Treatment as a single project.--The Hillsboro 
     extension to the Westside Light Rail Project shall be 
     considered by the Federal Transit Administration as a single 
     project extending from downtown Portland, Oregon, to downtown 
     Hillsboro, Oregon, for the purposes of project review, 
     evaluation, and approval of construction under section 3(i) 
     of the Federal Transit Act and for the purpose of preparing a 
     report under section 3(j) of such Act.''.
       (b) New Jersey Urban Core Project.--Section 3031(d) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 
     Stat. 2122-2123) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``Hudson River Waterfront 
     Transportation System'' the following: ``(including corridor 
     connections to and within the city of Bayonne)''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``Concourse,'' the following: ``the 
     West Shore Line,''.
       (c) North Bay Ferry Service.--Section 3035(c) of such Act 
     (105 Stat. 2129) is amended by striking ``$8,000,000'' and 
     all that follows through ``1993'' and inserting 
     ``$17,000,000''.
       (d) Staten Island-Midtown Manhattan Ferry Service.--Section 
     3035(d) of such Act is amended by striking ``$1,000,000'' and 
     all that follows through ``1993'' and inserting 
     ``$12,000,000''.
       (e) Central Area Circulator Project.--Section 3035(e) of 
     such Act is amended by striking the last sentence.
       (f) Salt Lake City Light Rail Project.--Section 3035(f) of 
     such Act is amended by inserting after ``including'' the 
     following: ``related high-occupancy vehicle lane, intermodal 
     corridor design,''.
       (g) Los Angeles-San Diego Rail Corridor Improvement 
     Project.--Section 3035(g) of such Act is amended by striking 
     ``not less than'' and all that follows through ``1994'' and 
     inserting ``$20,000,000''.
       (h) Additional Trackage Rights and Right-of-Way Purchase 
     for Gilroy Service.--Section 3035(h) of such Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``July 1, 1994'' and inserting ``September 
     30, 1996''; and
       (2) by striking ``August 1, 1994,'' and inserting ``October 
     31, 1996,''.
       (i) Dallas Light Rail Project.--
       (1) Multiyear grant agreement.--Section 3035(i) of such Act 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``6.4 miles'' and inserting ``9.6 miles'';
       (B) by striking ``10 stations'' and inserting ``not to 
     exceed 14 stations'';
       (C) by striking ``such light rail line'' and inserting 
     ``the program of interrelated projects identified in section 
     3(a)(8)(C)(vii) of the Federal Transit Act''; and
       (D) by striking ``of such elements'' and inserting 
     ``element of such program of interrelated projects''
       (2) Program of interrelated projects.--Section 
     3(a)(8)(C)(vii) of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App. 
     1602(a)(8)(C)(vii)) is amended by striking ``Camp Wisdom'' 
     and inserting ``Interstate Route 20, L.B.J. Freeway''.
       (j) South Boston.--Section 3035(j) of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 
     2130-2131) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$278,000,000'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``$323,000,000'';
       (2) by inserting ``the second place it appears'' after 
     ``striking `--' ''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following: ``Funds made 
     available for the South Boston Piers Transitway in fiscal 
     year 1994 for alternatives analysis may also be used for 
     construction.''.
       (k) Kansas City Light Rail Line.--Section 3035(k) of such 
     Act is amended by striking ``$1,500,000 in fiscal year 1992, 
     and $4,400,000 in fiscal year 1993'' and inserting 
     ``$5,900,000''.
       (l) Downtown Orlando Circulator Project.--Section 3035(l) 
     of such Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``No later than April 30, 1992, the'' and 
     inserting ``The'';
       (2) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$12,000,000''; and
       (3) by striking ``for'' the second place it appears and all 
     that follows through the period at the end and inserting 
     ``and the completion of final design, construction, land and 
     equipment acquisition, and related activities for the 
     Downtown Orlando Circulator project.''.
       (m) Detroit Light Rail Project.--Section 3035(m) of such 
     Act is amended by striking ``not less than'' the first place 
     it appears and all that follows through ``1993,'' and 
     inserting ``$20,000,000''.
       (n) Lakewood-Freehold-Mattawan or Jamesburg Rail Project.--
     Section 3035(p) of such Act is amended by striking 
     ``$1,800,000'' and all that follows through ``1994'' and 
     inserting ``$7,800,000''.
       (o) Charlotte Light Rail Study.--Section 3035(r) of such 
     Act is amended by striking ``$125,000'' and all that follows 
     through ``1993'' and inserting ``$500,000''.
       (p) San Diego Mid Coast Fixed Guideway Project.--Section 
     3035(u) of such Act is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Light Rail'' 
     and inserting ``Fixed Guideway'';
       (2) by striking ``No later than April 30, 1992, the'' and 
     inserting ``The'';
       (3) by striking ``, $2,000,000'' and all that follows 
     through ``right-of-way,'' and inserting ``$42,000,000''; and
       (4) by striking ``Light Rail'' and inserting ``Fixed 
     Guideway''.
       (q) RAILTRAN Commuter Rail Project.--Section 3035(x) of 
     such Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``No later than April 30, 1992, the'' and 
     inserting ``The''; and
       (2) by striking ``$2,480,000'' and all that follows through 
     ``1993'' and inserting ``$8,680,000''.
       (r) Eureka Springs, Arkansas.--Section 3035(z) of such Act 
     is amended by striking the first sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``From funds provided under section 3(k)(1)(c) of 
     the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary shall make available 
     $63,600 to Eureka Springs Transit for the purchase of an 
     alternative fueled vehicle, which is accessible to and usable 
     by individuals with disabilities.''.
       (s) Baltimore-Central Light Rail Extension.--Section 
     3035(nn) of such Act is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``as follows:
       ``(A) Not less than $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1993.
       ``(B) Not less than $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1994.''

     and inserting ``and shall be $60,000,000.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``as follows'' and all 
     that follows through the period at the end of subparagraph 
     (C) and inserting ``totaling $160,000,000.''.
       (t) Jacksonville Automated Skyway Express Extension.--
     Section 3035(vv) of such Act is amended to read as follows:
       ``(vv) Jacksonville Automated Skyway Express Extension.--
     Not later than December 31, 1994, the Secretary shall 
     negotiate and sign an agreement which modifies the full 
     funding agreement signed on September 27, 1991, with the 
     Jacksonville Transportation Authority for phase 1-B of the 
     north segment of the Automated Skyway Express project to make 
     available $15,000,000 in already appropriated funds and 
     $35,000,000 under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit 
     Act to carry out construction of the locally preferred 
     alternative for an operable segment of a not to exceed 1.8 
     mile extension to such project.''.
       (u) Dulles Corridor Rail Project.--Section 3035(aaa) of 
     such Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``No later than April 30, 1992, the'' and 
     inserting ``The'';
       (2) by striking ``$6,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$16,000,000''; and
       (3) by striking ``the completion'' and all that follows 
     through ``engineering for''.
       (v) Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Project.--Section 
     3035(bbb) of such Act is amended to read as follows:
       ``(bbb) Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Project.--From 
     funds provided under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal 
     Transit Act, the Secretary shall make available $300,000,000 
     for the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Project.''.
       (w) Canal Street Corridor Light Rail.--Section 3035(fff) of 
     such Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``No later than April 30, 1992, the'' and 
     inserting ``The''; and
       (2) by striking ``negotiate'' and all that follows through 
     ``includes'' and inserting ``make available''; and
       (3) by striking ``$4,800,000'' and all that follows through 
     ``statement for'' and inserting ``$44,800,000 to construct''.
       (x) Additional Projects.--
       (1) Santa cruz bus facility consolidation.--From funds 
     provided under section 3(k)(1)(C) of the Federal Transit Act, 
     the Secretary shall make available $4,120,000 for the Santa 
     Cruz Bus Facility Consolidation project.
       (2) Santa cruz fixed guideway.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $4,750,000 for the Santa Cruz Fixed 
     Guideway project.
       (3) San francisco ferry building renovation.--From funds 
     provided under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, 
     the Secretary shall make available $1,250,000 for the San 
     Francisco Ferry Building Renovation project.
       (4) AC transit bus improvements.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(C) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $10,000,000 to the Alameda County 
     Transit District for the purchase of buses.
       (5) Denver southwest corridor light rail.--From funds 
     provided under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, 
     the Secretary shall make available $13,000,000 for the Denver 
     Southwest Corridor Light Rail project.
       (6) Griffin line transitway.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $4,900,000 for the Griffin Line 
     Transitway project.
       (7) Tampa to lakeland commuter rail.--From funds provided 
     under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the 
     Secretary shall make available $16,300,000 for the Tampa to 
     Lakeland Commuter Rail project.
       (8) Ravenswood rapid transit line.--From funds provided 
     under section 3(k)(1)(A) of the Federal Transit Act, and 
     before the formula distribution of funds under such section, 
     the Secretary shall make available $20,000,000 to the Chicago 
     Transit Authority for the reconstruction of track on the 
     Ravenswood Rapid Transit line between Kimball Terminal and 
     Clark Junction and between Armitage Avenue and Tower 18.
       (9) Fitchburg intermodal facility.--From funds provided 
     under section 3(k)(1)(C) of the Federal Transit Act, the 
     Secretary shall make available $2,250,000 for the Fitchburg 
     Intermodal Facility.
       (10) East-west transitway.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $5,000,000 for the East-West Transitway 
     project in Montgomery County, Maryland.
       (11) Minneapolis.--From funds provided under section 
     3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary shall 
     make available $20,000,000 for the Minnesota Central Corridor 
     Light Rail project.
       (12) Hoboken terminal facility improvements.--From funds 
     provided under section 3(k)(1)(A) of the Federal Transit Act, 
     and before the formula distribution of funds under such 
     section, the Secretary shall make available $8,000,000 to 
     rehabilitate the Hoboken Terminal and Yard Complex in 
     Hoboken, New Jersey.
       (13) West 72d street transit station.--From funds provided 
     under section 3(k)(1)(A) of the Federal Transit Act, and 
     before the formula distribution of funds under such section, 
     the Secretary shall make available $9,500,000 to refurbish 
     and expand the West 72d Street Transit Station in New York, 
     New York.
       (14) Tren urbano light rail line.--From funds provided 
     under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the 
     Secretary shall make available $40,000,000 for the Tren 
     Urbano Light Rail project in Puerto Rico.
       (15) Memphis riverfront loop.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $5,900,000 for the Memphis Riverfront 
     Loop Light Rail project.
       (16) DART north central light rail extension.--From funds 
     provided under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, 
     the Secretary shall make available $18,628,000 for the DART 
     North Central Light Rail Extension project.
       (17) Austin light rail project.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $5,000,000 for the Austin Light Rail 
     project.
       (18) Edmonds multi-modal center.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $400,000 for fixed guideway improvements 
     in the vicinity of the Edmonds, Washington ferry terminal.
       (19) Milwaukee bus purchase.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(C) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $10,000,000 to purchase transit buses in 
     Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.
       (20) Tri-state transit authority purchase.--From funds 
     provided under section 3(k)(1)(C) of the Federal Transit Act, 
     the Secretary shall make available $3,416,000 to the Tri-
     State Transit Authority in Huntington, West Virginia, for the 
     purchase of transit vehicles, equipment, and related right-
     of-way facility costs.
       (21) Alaska marine transportation system.--Notwithstanding 
     section 3(a) of the Federal Transit Act, from funds provided 
     under section 3(k)(1)(B), the Secretary shall make available 
     $20,000,000 to the State of Alaska for the Alaska Marine 
     Transportation System project.
       (22) Long beach bus purchase.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(C) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $3,000,000 to the Long Beach Public 
     Transportation Company for the purchase of buses and spare 
     parts.
       (23) Palm desert people mover.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $5,000,000 for the Palm Desert People 
     Mover Project.
       (24) Los angeles/burbank/glendale/san fernando valley light 
     rail/intermodal connection.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $10,000,000 for the Los Angeles/Burbank/
     Glendale/San Fernando Valley Light Rail/Intermodal Connection 
     project.
       (25) Orange county transitway.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $15,000,000 for the Orange County 
     Transitway Project, including the connector in Costa Mesa, 
     California .
       (26) Golden empire transit light rail.--From funds provided 
     under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the 
     Secretary shall make available $2,000,000 for the Golden 
     Empire Transit Light rail project.
       (27) Delaware area rapid transit bus purchase.--From funds 
     provided under section 3(k)(1)(C) of the Federal Transit Act, 
     the Secretary shall make available $5,000,000 to the Delaware 
     Area Rapid Transit District for the purchase of buses.
       (28) Tri-county commuter rail.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $20,000,000 for capital improvements to 
     Tri-Rail Commuter Rail Service.
       (29) Safety and security pilot project.--From funds 
     provided under section 3(k)(1)(C) of the Federal Transit Act, 
     the Secretary shall make available $2,750,000 for a safety 
     and security pilot project in Champaign-Urbana, Rock Island, 
     and Springfield, Illinois.
       (30) Metra wisconsin central commuter rail line.--From 
     funds provided under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal 
     Transit Act, the Secretary shall make available $5,000,000 
     for capital improvements to provide commuter rail service 
     between Antioch, Illinois, and Chicago Union Station.
       (31) Cincinnati northeast/northern kentucky rail line.--
     From funds provided under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal 
     Transit Act, the Secretary shall make available $6,000,000 
     for the Cincinnati Northeast/Northern Kentucky Rail Line 
     project.
       (32) Worcester intermodal center.--From funds provided 
     under section 3(k)(1)(C) of the Federal Transit Act, the 
     Secretary shall make available $20,000,000 for the Union 
     Station Intermodal Center project.
       (33) Boston college alternative fuels/environmental 
     efficiency bus demonstration project.--From funds provided 
     under section 3(k)(1)(C) of the Federal Transit Act, the 
     Secretary shall make available $1,600,000 to Boston College 
     for the alternative fuels/environmental efficiency bus 
     demonstration project.
       (34) Shady grove to frederick corridor.--From funds 
     provided under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, 
     the Secretary shall make available $5,000,000 to the State of 
     Maryland for a corridor study of transit options in the Shady 
     Grove to Frederick Corridor.
       (35) Baltimore regional transit corridor study.--From funds 
     provided under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, 
     the Secretary shall make available $10,000,000 to the State 
     of Maryland for a study of transit corridors in the Baltimore 
     and southern Maryland regions.
       (36) West trenton line.--From funds provided under section 
     3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary shall 
     make available $10,000,000 to make capital improvements for 
     the West Trenton Commuter Rail Line.
       (37) Whitehall ferry terminal.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $20,000,000 for reconstruction of the 
     Whitehall Ferry Terminal in New York, New York.
       (38) Buffalo crossroads station.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $9,000,000 to the Niagara Frontier 
     Transportation Authority for the Crossroads Station project.
       (39) Columbus north corridor/osu link.--From funds provided 
     under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the 
     Secretary shall make available $10,000,000 for the Columbus 
     North Corridor/OSU Link project.
       (40) Bayfront centre intermodal complex.--From funds 
     provided under section 3(k)(1)(C) of the Federal Transit Act, 
     the Secretary shall make available $8,000,000 for the 
     Bayfront Centre Intermodal Complex project.
       (41) St. louis metro link extensions.--From funds provided 
     under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the 
     Secretary shall make available $16,000,000 for the St. Clair 
     extension to the St. Louis Metro Link light rail transit 
     system, $2,450,000 for the Cross-County extension to such 
     system, and $3,450,000 for the St. Charles extension to such 
     system.
       (42) Albany multimodal transportation facility.--From funds 
     provided under section 3(k)(1)(C), the Secretary shall make 
     available $590,000 for the multimodal transportation facility 
     in Albany, Oregon.
       (43) Miami metrorail north corridor extension.--From funds 
     provided under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, 
     the Secretary shall make available $15,000,000 for the 
     northern extension of the Metrorail rapid transit system in 
     Miami, Florida.
       (44) Valparaiso-chicago commuter corridor study.--From 
     funds provided under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal 
     Transit Act, the Secretary shall make available $56,000 to 
     determine the feasibility of restoring commuter rail service 
     between Valparaiso, Indiana, and Chicago, Illinois.
       (45) Area transportation authority of north central 
     pennsylvania.--From funds provided under section 3(k)(1)(C) 
     of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary shall make 
     available $3,434,000 for construction of a bus maintenance 
     facility in Elk County, satellite garage in Potter County, 
     and CNG fueling equipment in DuBois for the Area 
     Transportation Authority of North Central Pennsylvania.
       (46) Johnstown, pennsylvania.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(C) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $2,700,000 for the purchase of buses and 
     repair of a storage and repair facility and associated fuel 
     storage tanks for the Cambria County Transit Authority, 
     Pennsylvania.
       (47) Indiana county, pennsylvania.--From funds provided 
     under section 3(k)(1)(C) of the Federal Transit Act, the 
     Secretary shall make available $600,000 for the purchase of 
     buses for the Indiana County Transit Authority, Pennsylvania.
       (48) Altoona, pennsylvania.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(C) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $1,200,000 for the purchase of buses and 
     spare parts, an electronic public information system and 
     capital improvements to the Altoona Transportation Center to 
     Altoona Metro Transit, Pennsylvania.
       (49) DuBois/falls creek/sandy township, pennsylvania.--From 
     funds provided under section 3(k)(1)(C) of the Federal 
     Transit Act, the Secretary shall make available $480,000 for 
     the purchase of buses and lift-equipped vans for the DuBois/
     Falls Creek/Sandy Township Area Transit Authority, 
     Pennsylvania.
       (50) Tacoma eastern rail.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $4,000,000 to the city of Tacoma, 
     Washington, for the Tacoma Eastern Rail project from Tacoma 
     to Ashford.
       (51) Pittsburgh busway.--From funds provided under section 
     3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary shall 
     make available $5,036,000 for the Pittsburgh Busway project.
       (52) Illinois bus projects.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(C) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $5,000,000 for the purchase of buses in 
     Peoria, Champaign-Urbana, Rockford, PACE in the suburban area 
     of Chicago, and other nonurbanized area systems in Illinois.
       (53) Southwest brooklyn transit station and track 
     improvement project.--From funds provided under section 
     3(k)(1)(A) of the Federal Transit Act, and before formula 
     distribution of funds under such section, the Secretary shall 
     make available $4,000,000 to make station and track 
     improvements in Southwest Brooklyn, New York.
       (54) Wisconsin bus projects.--From funds provided under 
     section 3(k)(1)(C) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary 
     shall make available $2,600,000 for the purchase of buses, 
     vans, and bus-related facilities to the State of Wisconsin.
       (y) 1996 Olympic and Para-Olympic Bus Grants.--From funds 
     provided under section 3(k)(1)(C) of the Federal Transit Act 
     in fiscal year 1995, the Secretary shall transfer $16,000,000 
     to the program being carried out under section 9 of such Act 
     to make available $10,400,000 in capital and operating grants 
     for the 1996 Olympic and Para-Olympic games and $5,600,000 in 
     capital and operating grants for the 1996 Para-Olympic games. 
     The Federal share of such grants shall be 100 percent.
       (z) CALSTART Consortium.--From funds provided under section 
     3(k)(1)(C) of the Federal Transit Act, the Secretary shall 
     make available $5,000,000 to the CALSTART Consortium to 
     perform the services described in section 6071(c) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.

     SEC. 123. MULTIYEAR CONTRACT FOR METRO RAIL PROJECT.

       (a) In General.--Section 3034 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2126-2129) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(3)(A) by striking ``$695,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$720,000,000'';
       (2) by adding at the end of subsection (e)(3) the 
     following:
       ``(D) Scope.--The amended contract under subparagraph (A) 
     shall provide Federal assistance for the design and 
     construction of an interim operable segment of the East Side 
     Extension, consisting of a line running generally east from 
     Union Station of approximately 3.7 miles in length or in 
     accordance with the East Side Extension locally preferred 
     alternative, when approved by the Board of the Los Angeles 
     County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
       ``(E) Funding.--The $25,000,000 increase in authorization 
     provided for Minimum Operable Segment-3 under the National 
     Highway System Designation Act of 1994 shall be made 
     available by the Secretary for funding the scope of the East 
     Side Extension described in subparagraph (D). These funds 
     shall be in addition to the amounts provided for the East 
     Side Extension in the contract executed in May 1993 pursuant 
     to subsection (b) of this section.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 3034(i)(3) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``7 stations'' and inserting ``12 
     stations'';
       (2) by striking ``11.6'' and inserting ``15.4''; and
       (3) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) One line, known as the East Side Extension locally 
     preferred alternative, running generally east from Union 
     Station for approximately 6.8 miles to the Whittier/Atlantic 
     Station, with 6 intermediate stations.''.

     SEC. 124. METRIC SYSTEM SIGNING.

       (a) Placement of Signs.--Before September 30, 1997, the 
     Secretary may not require the States to expend any Federal or 
     State funds to construct, erect, or otherwise place any sign 
     relating to any speed limit, distance, or other measurement 
     on any highway for the purpose of having such sign establish 
     such speed limit, distance, or other measurement using the 
     metric system.
       (b) Modification of Signs.--Before September 30, 1997, the 
     Secretary may not require the States to expend any Federal or 
     State funds to modify any sign relating to any speed limit, 
     any distance, or other measurement on any highway for the 
     purpose of having such sign establish such speech limit, 
     distance, or measurement using the metric system.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of subsections (a) and (b), 
     the following definitions apply:
       (1) Highway.--The term ``highway'' has the meaning such 
     term has under section 101 of title 23, United States Code.
       (2) Metric system.--The term ``metric system'' has the 
     meaning the term ``metric system of measurement'' has under 
     section 4 of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 (15 U.S.C. 
     205c).

     SEC. 125. METROPOLITAN PLANNING.

       Section 134(g)(2)(A) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after ``transit,'' the following: 
     ``airport, port, inland waterway,''.

     SEC. 126. STATEWIDE PLANNING.

       (a) Integrated State Transportation System Facilities.--
     Section 135(e) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the first sentence the following: ``The plan 
     shall, at a minimum, identify transportation facilities 
     (including major roadways, transit, airport, port, inland 
     waterway, and multimodal and intermodal facilities) that 
     should function as an integrated State transportation system, 
     giving emphasis to those facilities that serve important 
     national and regional transportation functions.''.
       (b) Meeting Funding Needs of International Border Crossing 
     Communities.--Such section is further amended by inserting 
     after the first sentence the following: ``The State plan must 
     consider the special transportation requirements created by 
     international motor vehicle border crossings if applicable to 
     such State.''.

     SEC. 127. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY.

       With amounts available to the Secretary under section 
     1105(h) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
     Act of 1991, the Secretary in cooperation with the States of 
     Virginia and West Virginia shall conduct a study to determine 
     the feasibility of establishing a route for the East-West 
     Transamerica Corridor (designated pursuant to section 
     1105(c)(3) of such Act) from Beckley, West Virginia, 
     utilizing a corridor entering Virginia near the city of 
     Covington then moving south from the Allegheny Highlands to 
     serve Roanoke and continuing east to Lynchburg. From there 
     such route would continue across Virginia to the Hampton 
     Roads-Norfolk area.

     SEC. 128. REEVALUATION.

       (a) Initiation.--After completion of current construction 
     on Interstate Route 10 and Gessner Road, Texas, the Secretary 
     shall initiate a reevaluation in consultation with State and 
     local officials of--
       (1) a proposed exit ramp from the Sam Houston Tollway 
     eastbound direct connector to the eastbound Interstate Route 
     10 frontage road between Beltway 8 and Gessner Road; and
       (2) a proposed entrance ramp from the westbound Interstate 
     Route 10 frontage road between Gessner Road and Beltway 8 to 
     the westbound direct connector to the Sam Houston Tollway in 
     Houston, Harris County, Texas.
       (b) Deadline for Decision.--The Secretary shall issue a 
     decision on the proposed ramps referred to in subsection (a) 
     within 6 months after completion of the construction referred 
     to in subsection (a).
       TITLE II--TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO ISTEA AND RELATED LAWS

     SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 101(a) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking the 1st undesignated paragraph of such section 
     that relates to public lands highways.

     SEC. 202. REFERENCES TO DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER SYSTEM OF 
                   INTERSTATE AND DEFENSE HIGHWAYS.

       (a) Declaration of Policy.--Section 2 of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 
     1914-1915) is amended--
       (1) in the 3d undesignated paragraph by striking ``National 
     System of'' and inserting ``Dwight D. Eisenhower System of''; 
     and
       (2) in the 7th undesignated paragraph by striking 
     ``Interstate and Defense Highway System'' and inserting 
     ``Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense 
     Highways''.
       (b) Completion of Interstate System.--Section 1001 of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 
     U.S.C. 104 note; 105 Stat. 1915-1916) is amended in each of 
     subsections (a) and (b) by striking ``National''.
       (c) Definition of Interstate System in Title 23.--The 
     undesignated paragraph of section 101(a) of title 23, United 
     States Code, relating to the Interstate System, is amended by 
     striking ``National''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment to Vehicle Weight Limitations.--
     Section 127(a) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``National'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Dwight D. Eisenhower''.
       (e) Vehicle Length Restriction.--Section 411(j) of the 
     Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C. App. 
     2311(j)) is amended in each of paragraphs (1), (5)(D), and 
     (6)(A) by striking ``National'' and inserting ``Dwight D. 
     Eisenhower''.
       (f) Longer Combination Vehicle Defined.--Section 4007(f) of 
     the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
     (105 Stat. 2153) is amended by striking ``National'' and 
     inserting ``Dwight D. Eisenhower''.
       (g) Commemoration.--Section 6012 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 101 note; 
     105 Stat. 2180-2181) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading by striking ``NATIONAL''; and
       (2) in subsection (a) by striking ``National''.

     SEC. 203. FEDERAL-AID SYSTEMS.

       (a) Interstate System.--Section 103(e)(1) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking the next to the 
     last sentence.
       (b) Substitute Projects.--Section 103(e)(4) of such title 
     is amended--
       (1) in the last sentence of subparagraph (B) by striking 
     ``projects on the Federal-aid secondary system'' and 
     inserting ``surface transportation program projects'';
       (2) in subparagraph (G) by inserting ``and'' before 
     ``$240,000,000''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (J)(i) by inserting a comma after 
     ``October 1, 1991''.

     SEC. 204. APPORTIONMENT.

       (a) Set-Aside.--Section 104(a) of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``for the Federal-aid systems'' and 
     inserting ``for this chapter''; and
       (2) by striking ``upon the Federal-aid systems'' and 
     inserting ``under this chapter''.
       (b) Cross Reference to Interstate Construction Period of 
     Availability.--Section 104(b)(5)(A) of such title is amended 
     by striking ``118(b)(2)'' and inserting ``118(b)(1)''.
       (c) Technical Amendment.--Section 104(b)(5)(B) of such 
     title is amended by striking the comma following ``1984'' 
     each place it appears.
       (d) Repeal of Urban System Apportionment.--Section 
     104(b)(6) of such title is repealed.
       (e) Planning Set-Aside.--Section 104(f)(3) of such title is 
     amended by striking ``(j)''.
       (f) Transferability Among Safety and Bridge Programs.--
     Section 104(g) of such title is amended by striking ``Not 
     more than'' and all that follows through ``any other of such 
     sections'' the second place it appears and inserting the 
     following: ``Not more than 40 percent of the amount which is 
     apportioned in any fiscal year to each State under section 
     144 or which is reserved for such fiscal year under section 
     133(d)(1) only for carrying out section 130 or 152 may be 
     transferred from the apportionment under section 144 or one 
     of the reservations under section 133(d)(1) to the 
     apportionment or reservation under such other section if such 
     a transfer is requested by the State highway department and 
     is approved by the Secretary as being in the public interest. 
     The Secretary may approve the transfer of 100 percent of the 
     apportionment under section 144 or one of the reservations 
     under section 133(d)(1) to the apportionment or reservation 
     under such other section''.

     SEC. 205. PROGRAMS OF PROJECTS.

       (a) Repeal of Requirement.--Section 105 of title 23, United 
     States Code, and the item relating to such section in the 
     analysis for chapter 1 of such title are each repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 106(a) of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``, as soon as practicable after program 
     approval,''; and
       (2) by striking ``included in an approved program''.
       (c) Priority for High Priority Segments of Corridors of 
     National Significance.--Section 1105(g)(7) of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 
     2036) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(7) Priority for high priority segments of corridors of 
     national significance.--In selecting projects for inclusion 
     in a plan or program under chapter 1 of title 23, United 
     States Code, a State may give priority to high priority 
     segments of corridors identified under subsection (c) of this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 206. ADVANCE ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

       (a) Interstate System.--Section 107(a)(2) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``subsection (c)'' 
     and inserting ``subsection (a)''.
       (b) Apportioned Funds.--Section 108(a) of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``on any Federal-aid highway'' and 
     inserting ``for any project eligible for assistance under 
     this chapter'';
       (2) by striking ``on such highway'' and inserting ``on such 
     project''; and
       (3) by striking ``a road'' and inserting ``the project''.
       (c) Right-of-Way Revolving Fund Funds.--Section 108(c) of 
     such title is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``highways and passenger 
     transit facilities on any Federal-aid system'' and inserting 
     ``any project eligible for assistance under this chapter''; 
     and
       (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``such project for the 
     actual construction'' and all that follows through 
     ``Secretary'' the last place it appears and inserting 
     ``actual construction of such project on rights-of-way with 
     respect to which funds are advanced under this subsection, 
     whichever shall occur first, the right-of-way revolving fund 
     shall be credited with an amount equal to the Federal share 
     of the funds advanced, as provided in section 120 of this 
     title, out of any funds apportioned under this chapter to the 
     State in which such project is located and available for 
     obligation for such projects and the State shall reimburse 
     the Secretary''.
       (d) Early Acquisition.--Section 108(d)(2)(F) of such title 
     is amended by striking ``this Act'' and inserting ``this 
     title''.

     SEC. 207. STANDARDS.

       Section 109 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (h) by striking ``Federal-aid system'' 
     and inserting ``Federal-aid highway''; and
       (2) in subsection (q) by striking ``under sections'' and 
     inserting ``under section''.

     SEC. 208. LETTING OF CONTRACTS.

       Section 112(g) of title 23, United States Code, relating to 
     applicability to contracts for projects on the secondary 
     system, as redesignated by section 103(c) of this Act, is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 209. PREVAILING RATE OF WAGE.

       Section 113 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``highway projects on'' 
     and all that follows through ``authorized under'' and 
     inserting ``highway projects on Federal-aid highways 
     authorized under'';
       (2) in subsection (a) by striking ``upon the Federal-aid 
     systems,'' and inserting ``on Federal-aid highways,''; and
       (3) in subsection (b) by striking ``of the Federal-aid 
     systems'' and inserting ``Federal-aid highway''.

     SEC. 210. CONSTRUCTION.

       Section 114 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``highways or portions of 
     highways located on a Federal-aid system'' and inserting 
     ``Federal-aid highway or portion thereof'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``highways or portions 
     of highways located on a Federal-aid system'' and inserting 
     ``a Federal-aid highway or portion thereof''; and
       (3) in subsection (b)(3) by striking ``highways or portions 
     of highways located on a Federal-aid system'' and inserting 
     ``any Federal-aid highway or portion thereof''.

     SEC. 211. ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION.

       Section 115 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2) by striking ``Plans, 
     specifications,'' and inserting ``Project approval''; and
       (2) in subsection (c) by striking ``134,'' and the second 
     comma after ``144''.

     SEC. 212. MAINTENANCE.

       Section 116 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``highway'' before ``project'' the first 
     place it appears in each of subsections (a) and (c);
       (2) in subsection (a) by striking ``no longer constitutes a 
     part of a Federal-aid system'' and inserting ``is no longer a 
     Federal-aid highway''; and
       (3) in subsection (b) by striking ``the Federal-aid 
     secondary system'' and inserting ``a Federal-aid highway''.

     SEC. 213. CERTIFICATION ACCEPTANCE.

       Section 117 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e) by striking ``2000(d)'' and inserting 
     ``2000d''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (f), relating to discharge of 
     the Secretary's responsibilities with respect to the 
     secondary system.

     SEC. 214. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.

       (a) Period of Availability.--Section 118(b)(1) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by striking ``Interstate 
     construction in a State'' and inserting ``completion of the 
     Interstate System in a State''; and
       (2) in the second sentence by inserting ``for completion of 
     the Interstate System'' after ``shall be allocated''.
       (b) Set-Aside for Interstate Construction Projects.--
     Section 118(c)(1) of such title is amended by striking the 
     period at the end of the first sentence and all that follows 
     through the period at the end of the second sentence and 
     inserting ``for obligation at the discretion of the Secretary 
     for projects to complete the Interstate System.''.
       (c) Set-Aside for 4R Projects.--Section 118(c)(2) of such 
     title is amended by inserting ``of'' after ``$64,000,000 for 
     each''.

     SEC. 215. FEDERAL SHARE.

       (a) Interstate System Projects.--Section 120(a) of title 
     23, United States Code, is amended by inserting before 
     ``including a project'' the following: ``including a project 
     the cost for which is included in the 1991 interstate cost 
     estimate and''.
       (b) Safety Projects.--Section 120(c) of such title is 
     amended by striking ``for all the Federal-aid systems''.
       (c) Emergency Relief.--The first sentence of section 120(e) 
     of such title is amended--
       (1) by striking ``system, including'' and inserting ``, 
     including a highway on'';
       (2) by striking ``on a project on such system'';
       (3) by striking ``and (c)'' and inserting ``and (b)''; and
       (4) by striking ``90 days'' and inserting ``180 days''.
       (d) Planning Projects.--Section 120 of such title is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Planning Projects.--The Federal share payable on 
     account of any project to be carried out with funds set aside 
     under section 104(f) of this title shall be 80 percent of the 
     costs thereof unless the Secretary determines that the 
     interest of the Federal-aid highway program would best be 
     served by decreasing or eliminating the non-Federal share of 
     such costs.''.
       (e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 208(2) of the 
     Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 
     (42 U.S.C. 3338(2)) is amended by striking ``section 120(a) 
     of title 23, United States Code;''.

     SEC. 216. PAYMENT TO STATES FOR CONSTRUCTION.

       Section 121 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b) by striking ``After'' and inserting 
     ``Except as otherwise provided in this title, after''; and
       (2) in subsection (c) by striking ``Federal-aid system'' 
     and inserting ``Federal-aid highway''.

     SEC. 217. RELOCATION OF UTILITY FACILITIES.

       Section 123(a) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``on any Federal-aid system'' and inserting 
     ``eligible for assistance under this chapter''; and
       (2) by striking the last sentence.

     SEC. 218. ADVANCES TO STATES.

       Section 124(a) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``projects on any of the Federal-aid systems, 
     including the Interstate System, he'' and inserting ``a 
     project eligible for assistance under this title, the 
     Secretary''.

     SEC. 219. EMERGENCY RELIEF.

       (a) Technical Amendment.--The first sentence of section 
     125(b) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking all preceding ``Provided'' and inserting the 
     following: ``The Secretary may expend funds from the 
     emergency fund herein authorized for projects for repair or 
     reconstruction on Federal-aid highways in accordance with the 
     provisions of this chapter:''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 125(b) of such title is 
     further amended--
       (1) by striking ``authorized'' in the second sentence and 
     all that follows through the period at the end of such 
     sentence and inserting ``authorized on Federal-aid 
     highways.''; and
       (2) by striking ``the Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (Public Law 93-288)'' and inserting ``The 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act''.

     SEC. 220. APPLICABILITY OF AXLE WEIGHT LIMITATIONS.

       (a) Wisconsin State Route 78 and United States Route 51.--
     Section 127 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Operation of Certain Specialized Hauling Vehicles on 
     Certain Wisconsin Highways.--If the 104-mile portion of 
     Wisconsin State Route 78 and United States Route 51 between 
     Interstate Route 94 near Portage, Wisconsin, and Wisconsin 
     State Route 29 south of Wausau, Wisconsin, is designated as 
     part of the Interstate System under section 139(a) of title 
     23, United States Code, the single axle, tandem axle, gross 
     vehicle weight, and bridge formula limits set forth in 
     subsection (a) shall not apply to the operation on such 104-
     mile portion of any vehicle which could legally operate on 
     such 104-mile portion before the date of the enactment of 
     this subsection.''.
       (b) Vehicle Weight Limitations in the State of Ohio.--
       (1) Review.--The Secretary of Transportation shall review 
     the Federal and State commercial motor vehicle weight 
     limitations applicable to Federal-aid highways in the State 
     of Ohio.
       (2) Waiver authority.--If the Secretary of Transportation 
     determines, on the basis of the review conducted under 
     paragraph (1), that it is in the public interest, the 
     Secretary may waive application of the vehicle weight 
     limitations of section 127(a) of title 23, United States 
     Code, and of the State certification requirements of sections 
     141(b) and 141(c) of such title, in whole or in part, to 
     highways on the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and 
     Defense Highways in the State of Ohio for short wheel-base 
     vehicles for such period as the Secretary determines may be 
     necessary to permit a reasonable period of depreciation for 
     short wheel-base vehicles purchased before October 1, 1991.
       (3) Moratorium on withholding of funds.--Until the 
     Secretary of Transportation makes a determination relating to 
     the public interest under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall 
     not withhold funds under section 127(a) or 141(c) of title 
     23, United States Code, from apportionment to the State of 
     Ohio for failure to comply with such section with respect to 
     short wheel-base vehicles.
       (c) Technical Amendments.--Section 127 of title 23, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``118(b)(1)'' and 
     inserting ``118(b)(2)''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(1)(E) by striking ``July 5, 1991'' 
     and inserting ``July 6, 1991''.

     SEC. 221. TOLL ROADS.

       (a) Use of Revenues.--Section 129(a)(3) of title 23, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``all toll revenues 
     received'' and all that follows through the period at the end 
     of the first sentence and inserting the following: ``toll 
     revenues received from operation of the toll facility will be 
     used for financing and any other obligations in respect of 
     the facility, for reserves, for reasonable return to 
     investors financing the project (as determined by the State), 
     and for the costs necessary for the proper operation and 
     maintenance of the toll facility, including reconstruction, 
     resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation.''.
       (b) Reference to Federal-Aid Highways.--The last sentence 
     of section 129(a)(4) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``the Federal-aid system'' and inserting ``Federal-aid 
     highways''.
       (c) Loans.--Section 129(a)(7) of such title is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or commit to loan'' after ``loan'' the 
     first place it appears;
       (2) by striking ``agency'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``entity'';
       (3) by inserting after ``constructing'' the first place it 
     appears ``or proposing to construct'';
       (4) by striking ``all Federal environmental requirements 
     have been complied with and permits obtained'' and inserting 
     ``the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 has been 
     complied with'';
       (5) by inserting ``to a private entity'' after ``Any such 
     loan'';
       (6) by inserting after the fifth sentence the following new 
     sentence: ``Any such loan to a public entity shall bear 
     interest at such rate as the State determines appropriate.''; 
     and
       (7) by striking ``the time the loan was obligated'' and 
     inserting ``the date of the initial funding of the loan''.
       (d) Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal 
     Facilities.--Section 129 of such title is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of subsection (b) by striking 
     ``the route of which'' and all that follows through the 
     period at the end of such sentence and inserting ``the route 
     of which has been classified as a public road and has not 
     been designated as a route on the Interstate System.''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(4) by striking ``and'' preceding 
     ``repair''.
       (e) Pilot Program.--Section 129(d) of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) in each of paragraphs (1) and (3) by striking ``7'' and 
     inserting ``9'';
       (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``State of Pennsylvania'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``States of Pennsylvania 
     and West Virginia''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3) by inserting ``the'' before ``State of 
     Georgia''.
       (f) Treatment of Centennial Bridge, Rock Island, Illinois, 
     Agreement.--For purposes of section 129(a)(6) of title 23, 
     United States Code, the agreement concerning the Centennial 
     Bridge, Rock Island, Illinois, entered into under the Act 
     entitled ``An Act authorizing the city of Rock Island, 
     Illinois, or its assigns, to construct, maintain, and operate 
     a toll bridge across the Mississippi River at or near Rock 
     Island, Illinois, and to a place at or near the city of 
     Davenport, Iowa'', approved March 18, 1938 (52 Stat. 110), 
     shall be treated as if such agreement had been entered into 
     under section 129 of title 23, United States Code, as in 
     effect on December 17, 1991, and may be modified accordingly.
       (g) Treatment of I-95 and Pennsylvania Turnpike.--For 
     purposes of section 129 of title 23, United States Code, the 
     project for construction of an interchange between Interstate 
     Route 95 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike shall be treated as a 
     reconstruction project described in section 129(a)(1)(B) of 
     such title.

     SEC. 222. RAIL-HIGHWAY CROSSINGS.

       Section 130 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``Except as provided in 
     subsection (d) of'' and inserting ``Subject to'';
       (2) in subsection (a) by striking ``entire'' each place it 
     appears;
       (3) in subsection (a) by striking ``except as provided in 
     subsection (d) of'' and inserting ``subject to'';
       (4) in subsection (e) by striking ``authorized for and'';
       (5) in subsection (e) by striking the last sentence;
       (6) by striking subsection (f) and redesignating 
     subsections (g) and (h) as subsections (f) and (g), 
     respectively; and
       (7) in subsection (f) as so redesignated by striking 
     ``railroad highway'' and inserting ``railroad-highway''.

     SEC. 223. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM.

       (a) State Certification.--Section 133 of title 23, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c) by striking ``subsections (b) (3) and 
     (4)'' and inserting ``subsections (b)(3) and (b)(4)'';
       (2) in subsection (d)(3)(B) by striking ``tobe'' and 
     inserting ``to be''; and
       (3) in subsection (e)(2) by inserting after ``each State'' 
     the following: ``or the designated transportation authority 
     of the State''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 1007(b)(1) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 
     Stat. 1930) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``104(b)(3)'' and inserting ``104(b)''; and
       (2) by striking ``to read as follows'' and inserting ``by 
     inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph''.

     SEC. 224. METROPOLITAN PLANNING.

       (a) Technical Amendments.--Section 134 of title 23, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in each of subsections (b)(2), (b)(3), and (h)(4) by 
     striking ``the date of the enactment of this section'' and 
     inserting ``December 18, 1991'';
       (2) in each of subsections (b)(3)(B) and (g)(2)(B) by 
     striking ``long-range'' and inserting ``long range'';
       (3) in subsection (f)(11) by inserting ``passengers and'' 
     before ``freight'';
       (4) in subsection (g)(5) by redesignating subparagraphs (i) 
     and (ii) as subparagraphs (A) and (B); and
       (5) in subsection (k) by striking ``the Federal-Aid Highway 
     Act of 1991'' and inserting ``this title''.
       (b) Factors To Be Considered.--Section 134(f) of such title 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(16) Recreational travel and tourism.
       ``(17) Revitalization of the central urban core.''.
       (c) Transfer of Funds.--Section 134(k) of such title is 
     amended by striking the last sentence.
       (d) Conforming Chapter Analysis Amendment.--The analysis 
     for chapter 1 of such title is amended by striking

``134. Transportation planning in certain urban areas.''

     and inserting
``134. Metropolitan planning.''.

     SEC. 225. STATEWIDE PLANNING.

       Section 135 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c) by striking paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following new paragraph:
       ``(1) The transportation needs identified through use of 
     the management systems required by section 303 of this 
     title.'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(5) by inserting after 
     ``nonmetropolitan areas'' the following: ``, including the 
     identification of a rural priority local road and bridge 
     system,'';
       (3) in subsection (c) by striking paragraph (15) and 
     redesignating paragraphs (16) through (20) as paragraphs (15) 
     through (19), respectively;
       (4) in subsection (c)(18), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``commercial motor vehicles'' and inserting ``passengers and 
     freight'';
       (5) in subsection (d)(3) by striking ``concerns'' and 
     inserting ``transportation needs'';
       (6) in each of subsections (e) and (f)(1) by inserting 
     ``Indian tribal governments,'' after ``private providers of 
     transportation,''; and
       (7) in subsection (h)--
       (A) by striking ``United States Code,'' and inserting 
     ``other Federal laws, and'';
       (B) by striking ``this Act'' and inserting ``this title''; 
     and
       (C) by striking ``or section 8 of such Act,'' and inserting 
     ``of this title, or section 8 of the Federal Transit Act,''.

     SEC. 226. CONTROL OF JUNKYARDS.

       (a) Stricter State Standards.--Section 136(l) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``the Federal-aid 
     highway systems'' and inserting ``Federal-aid highways''.
       (b) Primary System Defined.--Section 136 of such title is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(n) Primary System Defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `primary system' means the Federal-aid 
     primary system in existence on June 1, 1991, and any highway 
     which is not on such system but which is on the National 
     Highway System.''.

     SEC. 227. NONDISCRIMINATION.

       (a) State Assurances.--Section 140(a) of title 23, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``any of the Federal-aid 
     systems'' and inserting ``Federal-aid highways''.
       (b) Training.--Section 140(b) of such title is amended--
       (1) by striking ``for the surface transportation program''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``the bridge program''.

     SEC. 228. ENFORCEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 141(b) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``the Federal-aid primary system'' and all that 
     follows through ``including'' and inserting ``Federal-aid 
     highways, including highways on''.

     SEC. 229. AVAILABILITY OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

       Section 142 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2) by striking ``the surface'' and 
     inserting ``surface''; and
       (2) in subsection (f) by striking ``exits'' and inserting 
     ``exists''.

     SEC. 230. HIGHWAY BRIDGE PROGRAM.

       (a) Set-Asides.--Section 144(g) of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``103'' and inserting 
     ``1003'';
       (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``Off-system bridges'' and 
     inserting ``Bridges not on federal-aid highways'';
       (3) in paragraph (3) by striking ``, other than those on a 
     Federal-aid system'' and inserting ``that are functionally 
     classified as local or rural minor collectors''; and
       (4) in paragraph (3) by striking ``bridges not on a 
     Federal-aid system'' and inserting ``such bridges''.
       (b) Cross Reference.--Section 144(i) of such title is 
     amended by striking ``307(e)'' and inserting ``307(h)''.
       (c) Continuation of Existing Bridge Apportionment 
     Criteria.--The criteria for apportionment of funds used by 
     the Department of Transportation under section 144 of title 
     23, United States Code, as in effect on September 30, 1991, 
     shall remain in effect until September 30, 1997, or until 
     changed by law, whichever occurs first.

     SEC. 231. GREAT RIVER ROAD.

       Section 148(a)(1) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``centers of the State'' and inserting 
     ``centers of the States''.

     SEC. 232. HAZARD ELIMINATION PROGRAM.

       Section 152 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c) by striking ``authorized'' and 
     inserting ``available''; and
       (2) by striking subsections (d) and (e) and redesignating 
     subsections (f), (g), and (h) as subsections (d), (e), and 
     (f), respectively.

     SEC. 233. USE OF SAFETY BELTS AND MOTORCYCLE HELMETS.

       (a) Reference to Date of Enactment.--Section 153 of title 
     23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c) by striking ``the date of the 
     enactment of this section'' and inserting ``December 31, 
     1991''; and
       (2) in subsection (i)(3) by striking ``the date of the 
     enactment of this section'' and inserting ``December 31, 
     1991,''.
       (b) Eligibility for Grants.--Section 153(f)(2) of such 
     title is amended by striking ``at all times'' each place it 
     appears.
       (c) Penalties.--Section 153(h) of such title is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``at any time in'' and 
     inserting ``by the last day of'';
       (2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``by the last day of 
     fiscal year 1995 or'' after ``If,'';
       (3) in paragraph (2) by striking ``1994,'' and inserting 
     ``1995,''; and
       (4) in paragraph (4)(A) by striking ``under section 402'' 
     and inserting ``by this subsection''.
       (d) Definitions.--Section 153(i) of such title is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) State.--The term `State' has the meaning such term 
     has under chapter 4 of this title.''.

     SEC. 234. NATIONAL MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT.

       (a) Existing Program.--Section 154(a)(1) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``on the 
     Interstate System'' and all that follows through ``or more'' 
     and inserting ``described in clause (2) or (3) of this 
     subsection''.
       (b) New Program.--Section 1029 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 1968-1970) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1)(A) by inserting ``of a State'' 
     after ``apportionments'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(1)(A) by striking ``if a State'' and 
     inserting ``to the apportionment of the State under section 
     402 of such title if the State'';
       (3) in subsection (c) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and 
     (3) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (1) of subsection (c) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Limitation on use of funds.--
       ``(A) General rule.--A State must obligate at least 50 
     percent of its funds transferred pursuant to this subsection 
     for a fiscal year for speed limit enforcement and public 
     information and education.
       ``(B) Waiver.--Upon request of a State, the Secretary may 
     waive the requirement of subparagraph (A) for any fiscal year 
     if in the preceding fiscal year the State was in compliance 
     with the speed limit requirements established pursuant to 
     paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 235. MINIMUM ALLOCATION.

       Section 157 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2) by striking ``118(b)(2)'' and 
     inserting ``118(b)(1)'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(3)(A) by striking ``year 1989'' and 
     inserting ``years 1989''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (c) and redesignating 
     subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (c) and (d), 
     respectively.

     SEC. 236. NATIONAL MINIMUM DRINKING AGE.

       Section 158 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``104(b)(5), and 
     104(b)(6)'' each place it appears and inserting ``104(b)(3), 
     and 104(b)(5)'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)(A)(iii) by striking ``104(b)(6)'' 
     and inserting ``104(b)(3)'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(3)(B) by striking ``104(b)(5)(B), or 
     104(b)(6)'' and inserting ``104(b)(3), or 104(b)(5)(B)''; and
       (4) in each of subsections (b)(3) and (b)(4) by striking 
     ``118(b)'' and inserting ``118''.

     SEC. 237. REVOCATION OF DRIVERS' LICENSES OF INDIVIDUALS 
                   CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES.

       Section 159 of title 23, United States Code, is amended in 
     each of subsections (b)(3) and (b)(4) by striking ``118(b)'' 
     and inserting ``118''.

     SEC. 238. REIMBURSEMENT FOR SEGMENTS OF INTERSTATE SYSTEM 
                   CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.

       Section 160 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b) by striking ``The amount'' and 
     inserting ``Subject to subsection (g), the amount''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Puerto Rico.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, Puerto Rico shall receive in a fiscal year \1/
     2\ of 1 percent of the amounts appropriated pursuant to 
     subsection (f) for such fiscal year. No State (including the 
     District of Columbia) which has a reimbursement percentage in 
     the table contained in subsection (c) of 0.50 shall have its 
     reimbursement amount in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 reduced as 
     a result of the enactment of the preceding sentence.''.

     SEC. 239. FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY PROGRAM.

       (a) Public Lands Highways Allocation.--Section 202(b) of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking ``66 
     percent of the remainder'' and inserting ``the remaining 66 
     percent''.
       (b) Availability of Funds.--Section 203 of such title is 
     amended by striking the comma preceding ``forest 
     development'' each place it appears.
       (c) Purposes for Which Funds May Be Used.--Section 204(b) 
     of such title is amended--
       (1) by striking ``construction and improvement'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``planning, research, engineering, 
     and construction''; and
       (2) by striking ``construction or improvement'' and 
     inserting ``planning, research, engineering, or 
     construction''.
       (d) Approval of Indian Reservation Road Projects.--Section 
     204(c) of such title is amended by inserting ``of'' after 
     ``15 percent''.
       (e) Obligation of Funds.--Section 204 of such title is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Obligation of Funds.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, funds available for Federal lands highway 
     programs shall be treated as obligated if--
       ``(1) the Secretary authorizes engineering and related work 
     for a particular project; or
       ``(2) the Secretary approves plans, specifications, and 
     estimates for procurement of construction under section 106 
     or 117 of this title.''.
       (f) Reference to Park Roads.--Section 1003(a)(6)(C) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 
     Stat. 1919) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``highways'' in the subparagraph heading 
     and inserting ``roads''; and
       (2) by striking ``highways'' the place it appears preceding 
     ``$69,000,000'' and inserting ``roads''.
       (g) Technical Amendment.--Section 1032(b)(2) (A) of such 
     Act (105 Stat. 1974) is amended by striking ``improvements'' 
     and inserting ``improvement''.

     SEC. 240. BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION AND PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY.

       Section 217 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b) by inserting ``pedestrian walkways 
     and'' before ``bicycle transportation facilities'';
       (2) in subsection (f) by striking ``and the Federal share'' 
     and all that follows through ``80 percent'';
       (3) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k); and
       (4) by inserting after subsection (i) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(j) Inclusion of Pedestrian Walkways and Bicycle 
     Transportation Facilities in Planning.--
       ``(1) General rule.--The Secretary may not approve under 
     this chapter a highway project for new construction or 
     reconstruction within the boundaries of a State along which a 
     pedestrian walkway or bicycle transportation facility is 
     required to be included under the State's transportation 
     improvement plan developed under section 135 unless such 
     pedestrian walkway or bicycle transportation facility is part 
     of such highway project.
       ``(2) Exception.--The Secretary does not have to approve a 
     project for construction of a pedestrian walkway or bicycle 
     transportation facility under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) if the Secretary determines that such construction is 
     not feasible or that use of the walkway or facility would 
     pose a safety risk to pedestrians or bicyclists, as the case 
     may be; or
       ``(B) the Secretary determines that there will be no 
     substantial transportation or recreation benefit resulting 
     from the project.''.

     SEC. 241. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT.

       Section 302(b) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``on the Federal-aid secondary system, financed 
     with secondary funds,'' and inserting ``not on the National 
     Highway System''.

     SEC. 242. MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS.

       Section 303 of title 23, United States Code, is amended in 
     each of subsections (a) and (b) by striking ``1 year after 
     the date of the enactment of this section'' and inserting 
     ``December 18, 1992''.

     SEC. 243. STATE PLANNING AND RESEARCH.

       Section 307 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1) by striking ``104'' and inserting 
     ``104(b)'';
       (2) in subsection (e)(3)(C) by striking ``climactic'' and 
     inserting ``climatic'';
       (3) in subsection (e)(13) by striking the quotation marks 
     preceding ``$35,000,000'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(2) by striking ``section'' the first 
     place it appears and inserting ``paragraph'';
       (5) in the heading to subsection (f)(3) by inserting 
     ``earthquake'' after ``national''; and
       (6) in subsection (f)(3) by inserting ``Earthquake'' after 
     ``National''.

     SEC. 244. APPROPRIATION FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES OF FEDERAL 
                   LANDS.

       Section 317(d) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``system'' and inserting ``highway''.

     SEC. 245. INTERNATIONAL HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION OUTREACH 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 325(a)(5) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``the date of the enactment of this 
     section'' and inserting ``December 18, 1991''.

     SEC. 246. HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 402 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 402. Highway safety programs

       ``(a) In General.--Each State shall have a highway safety 
     program approved by the Secretary which is designed to reduce 
     traffic accidents and deaths, injuries, and property damage 
     resulting therefrom.
       ``(b) Uniform Guidelines.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--The State highway safety programs 
     approved under this section shall be in accordance with 
     uniform guidelines promulgated by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Performance criteria.--The uniform guidelines shall 
     be expressed in terms of performance criteria.
       ``(3) Purposes.--The uniform guidelines shall include, at a 
     minimum, criteria relating to--
       ``(A) reducing injuries and deaths resulting from motor 
     vehicles being driven in excess of posted speed limits;
       ``(B) encouraging the proper use of occupant protection 
     devices (including the use of safety belts and child 
     restraint systems) by occupants of motor vehicles and 
     increasing public awareness of the benefit of motor vehicles 
     equipped with airbags;
       ``(C) reducing deaths and injuries resulting from persons 
     driving motor vehicles while impaired by alcohol or a 
     controlled substance;
       ``(D) reducing deaths and injuries resulting from accidents 
     involving motorcycles;
       ``(E) reducing injuries and deaths resulting from accidents 
     involving school buses; and
       ``(F) improving law enforcement services in motor vehicle 
     accident prevention, traffic supervision, and post-accident 
     procedures.
       ``(4) Effectiveness determination.--A State highway safety 
     program relating to a guideline established pursuant to 
     paragraph (3) shall be considered a most effective program 
     for purposes of subsection (i) unless the Secretary 
     determines, after a rulemaking process under subsection (i), 
     that it should not be so considered and submits a report to 
     Congress describing the reasons for the determination.
       ``(5) Additional purposes.--The uniform guidelines may 
     include provisions to improve driver performance (including 
     driver education, driver testing to determine proficiency to 
     operate motor vehicles, driver examinations (both physical 
     and mental) and driver licensing) and to improve pedestrian 
     performance and bicycle safety. In addition the uniform 
     guidelines may include provisions for an effective record 
     system of accidents (including injuries and deaths resulting 
     therefrom), accident investigations to determine the probable 
     causes of accidents, injuries, and deaths, vehicle 
     registration, operation, and inspection, highway design and 
     maintenance (including lighting, markings, and surface 
     treatment), traffic control, vehicle codes and laws, 
     surveillance of traffic for detection and correction of high 
     or potentially high accident locations, and emergency 
     services.
       ``(6) Applicability to federally administered areas.--The 
     uniform guidelines which are applicable to State highway 
     safety programs shall, to the extent determined appropriate 
     by the Secretary, be applicable to federally administered 
     areas where a Federal department or agency controls the 
     highways or supervises traffic operations.
       ``(7) Limitation on statutory construction.--Implementation 
     of a highway safety program under this section shall not be 
     construed to require the Secretary to require compliance with 
     every uniform guideline, or with every element of every 
     uniform guideline, in every State.
       ``(8) Cooperation in promulgation.--Uniform guidelines 
     promulgated by the Secretary to carry out this section shall 
     be developed in cooperation with the States, their political 
     subdivisions, appropriate Federal departments and agencies, 
     and such other public and private organizations as the 
     Secretary deems appropriate.
       ``(9) Assistance of other federal departments.--The 
     Secretary may make arrangements with other Federal 
     departments and agencies for assistance in the preparation of 
     uniform guidelines for the highway safety programs 
     contemplated by this subsection and in the administration of 
     such programs. Such departments and agencies are directed to 
     cooperate in such preparation and administration, on a 
     reimbursable basis.
       ``(c) Requirements for Approval.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may not approve a State 
     highway safety program under this section which does not--
       ``(A) provide that the Governor of the State shall be 
     responsible for the administration of the program through a 
     State highway safety agency which shall have adequate powers 
     and be suitably equipped and organized to carry out, to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary, such program;
       ``(B) authorize political subdivisions of the State to 
     carry out local highway safety programs within their 
     jurisdictions as a part of the State highway safety program 
     if such local highway safety programs are approved by the 
     Governor and are in accordance with the uniform guidelines 
     promulgated by the Secretary under this section;
       ``(C) except as provided in paragraph (2), provide that at 
     least 40 percent of all Federal funds apportioned under this 
     section to the State for any fiscal year will be expended by 
     the political subdivisions of the State, including Indian 
     tribal governments, in carrying out local highway safety 
     programs authorized in accordance with subparagraph (B); and
       ``(D) provide adequate and reasonable access for the safe 
     and convenient movement of individuals with disabilities, 
     including those in wheelchairs, across curbs constructed or 
     replaced on or after July 1, 1976, at all pedestrian 
     crosswalks throughout the State.
       ``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirement of 
     paragraph (1)(C), in whole or in part, for a fiscal year for 
     any State whenever the Secretary determines that there is an 
     insufficient number of local highway safety programs to 
     justify the expenditure in the State of such percentage of 
     Federal funds during the fiscal year.
       ``(3) Use of technology for traffic enforcement.--The 
     Secretary may encourage States to use technologically 
     advanced traffic enforcement devices (including the use of 
     automatic speed detection devices such as photo-radar) by law 
     enforcement officers.
       ``(d) Data Collection and Reporting Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     highway safety program for the collection and reporting of 
     data on traffic-related deaths and injuries by the States. 
     Under such program, the States shall collect and report to 
     the Secretary such data as the Secretary may require.
       ``(2) Purposes.--The purposes of the program under this 
     subsection are to ensure national uniform data on such deaths 
     and injuries and to allow the Secretary to make 
     determinations for use in developing programs to reduce such 
     deaths and injuries and making recommendations to Congress 
     concerning legislation necessary to implement such programs.
       ``(3) Program requirements.--The program under this 
     subsection shall include information obtained by the 
     Secretary under section 4004 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and provide for annual 
     reports to the Secretary on the efforts being made by the 
     States in reducing deaths and injuries occurring at highway 
     construction sites and the effectiveness and results of such 
     efforts.
       ``(4) Reporting criteria.--The Secretary shall establish 
     minimum reporting criteria for the program under this 
     subsection. Such criteria shall include, but not be limited 
     to, criteria on deaths and injuries resulting from police 
     pursuits, school bus accidents, and speeding, on traffic-
     related deaths and injuries at highway construction sites and 
     on the configuration of commercial motor vehicles involved in 
     motor vehicle accidents.
       ``(e) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) For highway safety programs.--Funds authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this section shall be used to aid 
     the States to conduct the highway safety programs approved in 
     accordance with subsection (a), including development and 
     implementation of manpower training programs, and of 
     demonstration programs that the Secretary determines will 
     contribute directly to the reduction of traffic accidents and 
     deaths and injuries resulting therefrom.
       ``(2) Administrative expenses.--Funds authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this section shall be subject to a 
     deduction not to exceed 5 percent for the necessary costs of 
     administering the provisions of this section, and the 
     remainder shall be apportioned among the several States under 
     subsection (f).
       ``(3) Limitation.--Nothing in this section authorizes the 
     appropriation or expenditure of funds--
       ``(A) for highway construction, maintenance, or design 
     (other than design of safety features of highways to be 
     incorporated into guidelines); or
       ``(B) for any purpose for which funds are authorized by 
     section 403 of this title.
       ``(f) Apportionment of Funds.--
       ``(1) Formula.--After the deduction under subsection 
     (e)(2), the remainder of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this section shall be apportioned 
     75 percent in the ratio which the population of each State 
     bears to the total population of all the States, as shown by 
     the latest available Federal census, and 25 percent in the 
     ratio which the public road mileage in each State bears to 
     the total public road mileage in all States.
       ``(2) Minimum percentage.--The annual apportionment to each 
     State shall not be less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the total 
     apportionment; except that the apportionments to the Virgin 
     Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands shall not be less than \1/4\ of 1 
     percent of the total apportionment.
       ``(3) Approved highway safety program.--The Secretary shall 
     not apportion any funds under this subsection to any State 
     which is not implementing a highway safety program approved 
     by the Secretary in accordance with this section.
       ``(4) Reduction of apportionment.--Funds apportioned under 
     this section to any State, that does not have a highway 
     safety program approved by the Secretary or that is not 
     implementing an approved program, shall be reduced by amounts 
     equal to not less than 50 percent of the amounts that would 
     otherwise be apportioned to the State under this section, 
     until such time as the Secretary approves such program or 
     determines that the State is implementing an approved 
     program, as appropriate. The Secretary shall consider the 
     gravity of the State's failure to have or implement an 
     approved program in determining the amount of the reduction.
       ``(5) Apportionment of withheld funds.--The Secretary shall 
     promptly apportion to the State the funds withheld from its 
     apportionment if the Secretary approves the State's highway 
     safety program or determines that the State has begun 
     implementing an approved program, as appropriate, prior to 
     the end of the fiscal year for which the funds were withheld. 
     If the Secretary determines that the State did not correct 
     its failure within such period, the Secretary shall 
     reapportion the withheld funds to the other States in 
     accordance with the formula specified in this subsection not 
     later than 30 days after such determination.
       ``(6) Determination of public road mileage.--For the 
     purposes of this subsection, the term a `public road' means 
     any road under the jurisdiction of, and maintained by, a 
     public authority and open to public travel. As used in this 
     subsection, public road mileage shall be determined as of the 
     end of the calendar year preceding the year in which the 
     funds are apportioned and shall be certified to by the 
     Governor of the State and subject to approval by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(g) Applicability of Chapter 1.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, all provisions of chapter 1 of this title that 
     are applicable to National Highway System highway funds, 
     other than provisions relating to the apportionment formula 
     and provisions limiting the expenditure of such funds to the 
     Federal-aid systems, shall apply to the highway safety funds 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section.
       ``(2) Inconsistent provisions.--If the Secretary determines 
     that a provision of chapter 1 of this title is inconsistent 
     with this section, such provision shall not apply to funds 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section.
       ``(3) Credit for state and local expenditures.--The 
     aggregate of all expenditures made during any fiscal year by 
     a State and its political subdivisions (exclusive of Federal 
     funds) for carrying out the State highway safety program 
     (other than planning and administration) shall be available 
     for the purpose of crediting such State during such fiscal 
     year for the non-Federal share of the cost of any project 
     under this section (other than one for planning or 
     administration) without regard to whether such expenditures 
     were actually made in connection with such project.
       ``(4) Increased federal share for certain indian tribe 
     programs.--In the case of a local highway safety program 
     carried out by an Indian tribe, if the Secretary is satisfied 
     that an Indian tribe does not have sufficient funds available 
     to meet the non-Federal share of the cost of such program, 
     the Secretary may increase the Federal share of the cost 
     thereof payable under this title to the extent necessary.
       ``(5) Treatment of term `state highway department'.--In 
     applying the provisions of chapter 1 of this title in 
     carrying out this section, the term `State highway 
     department' as used in such provisions shall mean the 
     Governor of a State for the purposes of this section.
       ``(h) Application in Indian Country.--
       ``(1) In general.--For the purpose of the application of 
     this section in Indian country, the terms `State' and 
     `Governor of a State' include the Secretary of the Interior 
     and the term `political subdivision of a State' includes an 
     Indian tribe. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 
     (c)(1)(C), 95 percent of the funds transferred to the 
     Secretary of the Interior under this section shall be 
     expended by Indian tribes to carry out highway safety 
     programs within their jurisdictions. The provisions of 
     subsection (c)(1)(D) shall be applicable to Indian tribes, 
     except to those tribes with respect to which the Secretary 
     determines that application of such provisions would not be 
     practicable.
       ``(2) Indian country defined.--For the purpose of this 
     subsection, the term `Indian country' means--
       ``(A) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation 
     under the jurisdiction of the United States, notwithstanding 
     the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way 
     running through the reservation;
       ``(B) all dependent Indian communities within the borders 
     of the United States whether within the original or 
     subsequently acquired territory thereof and whether within or 
     without the limits of a State; and
       ``(C) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which 
     have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running 
     through such allotments.
       ``(i) Rulemaking Process.--The Secretary may from time to 
     time conduct a rulemaking process to determine those highway 
     safety programs that are most effective in reducing traffic 
     accidents, injuries, and deaths. Any rule under this 
     subsection shall be promulgated taking into account 
     consideration of the views of the States having a major role 
     in establishing such programs. When a rule promulgated in 
     accordance with this subsection takes effect, only those 
     programs established by such rule as most effective in 
     reducing traffic accidents, injuries, and deaths shall be 
     eligible to receive Federal financial assistance under this 
     section.''.
       (b) Section 2005.--Section 2005(1) of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 
     2079) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' the first place it appears and 
     inserting a comma; and
       (2) by striking ``, 1994,'' and inserting ``and 1994, and 
     $146,000,000 for each of fiscal years''.

     SEC. 247. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       Section 404(d) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``Commerce'' and inserting ``Transportation''.

     SEC. 248. ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING COUNTER- MEASURES.

       (a) Technical Amendment.--Section 410(d)(1)(E) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``the date of 
     enactment of this section'' and inserting ``December 18, 
     1991''.
       (b) Basic Grant Eligibility.--Section 410(d)(3) of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(3)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) A State shall be treated as having met the 
     requirement of this paragraph if--
       ``(i) the State provides to the Secretary a written 
     certification that the highest court of the State has issued 
     a decision indicating that implementation of subparagraph (A) 
     would constitute a violation of the constitution of the 
     State; and
       ``(ii) the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary--
       ``(I) that the alcohol fatal crash involvement rate in the 
     State has decreased in each of the 3 most recent calendar 
     years for which statistics for determining such rate are 
     available; and
       ``(II) that the alcohol fatal crash involvement rate in the 
     State has been lower than the average such rate for all 
     States in each of such calendar years.''.

     SEC. 249. PUBLIC TRANSIT FACILITIES.

       Section 1023(h) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by striking ``this Act'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``the Department of 
     Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1993''.

     SEC. 250. PENSACOLA, FLORIDA.

       Section 1086(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2022) is amended by 
     striking ``Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act,'' and inserting ``On or before June 
     18, 1995,''.

     SEC. 251. HIGH COST BRIDGE PROJECT.

       The table contained in section 1103(b) of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 
     2027-2028) is amended in item number 5, relating to 
     Gloucester Point, Virginia, by inserting after ``York River'' 
     the following: ``and for repair, strengthening, and 
     rehabilitation of the existing bridge''.

     SEC. 252. CONGESTION RELIEF PROJECT.

       The table contained in section 1104(b) of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 
     2029-2031) is amended--
       (1) in item number 10, relating to San Diego, California, 
     by striking ``1 block of Cut and Cover Tunnel on Rt. 15'' and 
     inserting ``bridge decking on Route 15''; and
       (2) in item number 43, relating to West Virginia, by 
     striking ``Coal Fields'' and inserting ``Coalfields''.

     SEC. 253. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

       (a) East-West Transamerica Corridor.--Section 1105(c)(3) of 
     the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
     (105 Stat. 2032) is amended by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``, including (A) a Kentucky corridor 
     centered on the cities of Paducah, Benton, Hopkinsville, 
     Bowling Green, Columbia, Somerset, London, Hazard, Jenkins, 
     and Pikeville, Kentucky, to Williamson, West Virginia, and 
     (B) a West Virginia corridor from Williamson to the vicinity 
     of Welch, West Virginia, sharing a common corridor with the 
     I-73/74 corridor (referred to in item 12 of the table 
     contained in subsection (f)), and from the vicinity of Welch 
     to Beckley, West Virginia, as part of the Coalfields 
     Expressway described in section 1069(v)''.
       (b) Indianapolis to Houston Corridor.--Section 1105(c)(18) 
     of such Act (105 Stat. 2032) is amended by inserting before 
     the period at the end the following: ``, including a Kentucky 
     corridor centered on the cities of Henderson, Sturgis, 
     Smithland, Paducah, Bardwell, and Hickman, Kentucky''.

     SEC. 254. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDOR PROJECT.

       The table contained in section 1105(f) of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 
     2033-2035) is amended--
       (1) in item 1, relating to Pennsylvania, by inserting after 
     ``For'' the following: ``the segment described in item 6 of 
     this table and, after completion of such segment, for''; and
       (2) in item number 26, relating to Indiana, Kentucky, 
     Tennessee, by striking ``Newberry'' and inserting 
     ``Evansville''.

     SEC. 255. RURAL ACCESS PROJECTS.

       (a) Project Descriptions.--The table contained in section 
     1106(a)(2) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2037-2042) is amended--
       (1) in item number 34, relating to Illinois, by striking 
     ``Resurfacing'' and all that follows through ``Omaha'' and 
     inserting ``Bel-Air Road improvement from south of Carmi to 
     State Route 141 in southeastern White County'';
       (2) in item number 52, relating to Bedford Springs, 
     Pennsylvania, by striking ``and Huntington'' and inserting 
     ``Franklin, and Huntingdon'';
       (3) in item number 61, relating to Lubbock, Texas, by 
     striking ``with'' and inserting ``with Interstate 10 
     through'';
       (4) in item number 75, relating to Pennsylvania, by 
     striking ``Widen'' and all that follows through ``lanes'' and 
     inserting ``Road improvements on a 14-mile segment of U.S. 
     Route 15 in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania'';
       (5) in item number 92, relating to Ohio, by striking 
     ``Minerva, Ohio'' and insert ``Lisbon, Ohio'';
       (6) in item number 93, relating to New Mexico, by striking 
     ``Raton-Clayton Rd., Clayton, New Mexico'' and inserting 
     ``U.S. Rt. 64/87 from Raton, New Mexico, through Clayton to 
     the Texas-New Mexico State line''; and
       (7) in item number 111, relating to Parker County, Texas 
     (SH199)--
       (A) by striking ``Parker County'' and inserting ``Parker 
     and Tarrant Counties''; and
       (B) by striking ``to four-'' and inserting ``in Tarrant 
     County, to freeway standards and in Parker County to a 4-''.
       (b) Additional Funding.--Section 1106(a) of such Act is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Additional funding.--In addition to funds otherwise 
     made available by this subsection for the project described 
     in item number 52 of the table contained in paragraph (2), 
     there shall be available from the Highway Trust Fund (other 
     than the Mass Transit Account) for carrying out such project 
     $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1995 and $1,300,000 per fiscal 
     year for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997.''.

     SEC. 256. URBAN ACCESS AND MOBILITY PROJECTS.

       The table contained in section 1106(b)(2) of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 
     2043-2047) is amended--
       (1) in item number 13, relating to Joliet, Illinois, by 
     striking ``and construction and interchange at Houbolt Road 
     and I-80''; and
       (2) in item number 36, relating to Compton, California, by 
     striking ``For a grade'' and all that follows through 
     ``Corridor'' and inserting ``For grade separations and other 
     improvements in the city of Compton, California''.

     SEC. 257. INNOVATIVE PROJECTS.

       The table contained in section 1107(b) of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 
     2048-2059) is amended--
       (1) in item 20, relating to Holidaysburg, Pennsylvania--
       (A) by striking ``Holidaysburg,'' the first place it 
     appears; and
       (B) by inserting ``, or other projects in the counties of 
     Bedford, Blair, Centre, Franklin, and Huntingdon as selected 
     by the State of Pennsylvania'' after ``Pennsylvania'' the 
     second place it appears;
       (2) in item number 29, relating to Blacksburg, Virginia, by 
     inserting ``methods of facilitating public and private 
     participation in'' after ``demonstrate'';
       (3) in item number 35, relating to Alabama, by striking 
     ``to bypass'' and all that follows through ``I-85'' and 
     inserting ``beginning on U.S. Route 80 west of Montgomery, 
     Alabama, and connecting to I-65 south of Montgomery and I-85 
     east of Montgomery'';
       (4) in item number 52, relating to Pennsylvania, by 
     striking ``off Interstate'' and all that follows through 
     ``Pennsylvania'' and inserting ``and other highway projects 
     within a 30-mile vicinity of Interstate Route 81 or 
     Interstate Route 80 in northeastern Pennsylvania'';
       (5) in item number 61, relating to Mojave, California, by 
     striking ``Mojave'' and inserting ``Victorville'' and by 
     inserting ``Mojave'' after ``reconstruct'';
       (6) in item number 76, relating to Tennessee--
       (A) by inserting after ``I-81'' the following: 
     ``interchange at''; and
       (B) by striking ``Interchange'' and inserting ``or Kendrick 
     Creek Road'';
       (7) in item number 100, relating to Arkansas, by striking 
     ``Thornton'' and inserting ``Little Rock'';
       (8) in item number 113, relating to Durham County, North 
     Carolina, by inserting after ``Route 147'' the following: ``, 
     including the interchange at I-85''; and
       (9) in item number 114, relating to Corpus Christi to 
     Angleton, Texas, by striking ``Construct new multi-lane 
     freeway'' and inserting ``Construct a 4-lane divided 
     highway''.

     SEC. 258. INTERMODAL PROJECTS.

       The table contained in section 1108(b) of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 
     2060-2063) is amended--
       (1) in item number 9, relating to E. Haven/Wallingford, 
     Connecticut--
       (A) by striking ``$8.8'' and inserting ``$7.5'';
       (B) by striking ``$2.4'' and inserting ``$2.0''; and
       (C) by striking ``$0.7'' and inserting ``$0.6'';
       (2) in item 38, relating to Provo, Utah, strike ``South'' 
     and all that follows through ``Airport'' and insert ``East-
     West Connector from United States Highway 89-189, Provo, 
     Utah''; and
       (3) in item 51, relating to Long Beach, California, by 
     inserting ``(including a grade separation project for the Los 
     Alamitos traffic circle at Lakewood Boulevard and Pacific 
     Coast Highway)'' after ``Access''.

     SEC. 259. MISCELLANEOUS INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 
                   EFFICIENCY ACT AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Cross Reference in Highway Use Tax Evasion Program.--
     Section 1040(a) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 101 note; 105 Stat. 1992) 
     is amended by striking ``(e)'' and inserting ``(f)''.
       (b) Report to Congress on Quality Improvement.--Section 
     1043(b) of such Act (105 Stat. 1993) is amended by inserting 
     ``General'' after ``Comptroller''.
       (c) Coalfields Expressway.--Section 1069(v) of such Act 
     (105 Stat. 2010) is amended by striking ``97, 10, 16, and 
     93'' and inserting ``16, and 83''.
       (d) Period of Availability of Funds for Miscellaneous 
     Projects.--Section 1069 of such Act is amended--
       (1) by striking the last sentence of subsection (y); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(ii) Period of Availability.--Funds provided to carry out 
     this section shall remain available until expended.''.
       (e) Final Rule for Roadside Barriers and Safety 
     Appurtenances.--Section 1073(b) of such Act (105 Stat. 2012) 
     is amended by striking ``1 year'' and inserting ``2 years''.
       (f) Interstate Study Commission.--Section 1099 of such Act 
     (105 Stat. 2026) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``bill'' and inserting ``Act'';
       (2) by striking ``passage of this legislation'' and 
     inserting ``the enactment of this Act'';
       (3) by inserting after ``Columbia'' the second place it 
     appears the following: ``appointed by the Governors of the 
     States of Maryland and Virginia and the Mayor of the District 
     of Columbia, respectively''; and
       (4) by striking ``appointed by the Governors and the 
     Mayor'' and inserting ``, 1 each for Maryland, Virginia, and 
     the District of Columbia appointed by the Governors and the 
     Mayor, respectively''.
       (g) Drug Recognition Expert Training Program.--Section 
     2006(b) of such Act (23 U.S.C. 403 note; 105 Stat. 2080) is 
     amended by inserting ``Federal'' before ``Advisory''.
       (h) Applicability of Obligation Ceiling to Certain Highway 
     Safety Programs.--Section 2009 of such Act (105 Stat. 2080) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a) In General.--'';
       (2) by striking ``211(b)'' the first place it appears and 
     inserting ``211'';
       (3) by striking ``102'' and inserting ``1002''; and
       (4) by striking subsection (b).

     SEC. 260. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM.

       In administering section 1003(b) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the limitation on 
     annual gross receipts of a small business concern set forth 
     in paragraph (2)(A) of such section shall be the only 
     limitation on annual gross receipts which applies to small 
     business concerns.

     SEC. 261. AMENDMENTS TO SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND UNIFORM 
                   RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1987.

       (a) Section 149.--Section 149(a)(69) of the Surface 
     Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 
     (101 Stat. 191), relating to Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena 
     Airport, California, is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by striking ``highway'';
       (2) in the first sentence by striking ``and construction of 
     terminal and parking facilities at such airport''; and
       (3) by striking ``by making'' in the second sentence and 
     all that follows through the period at the end of such 
     sentence and inserting: ``by preparing a feasibility study 
     and conducting preliminary engineering, design, and 
     construction of a link between such airport and the commuter 
     rail system that is being developed by the Los Angeles County 
     Metropolitan Transportation Authority.''.
       (b) Section 317.--Section 317(b) of such Act (49 U.S.C. 
     App. 1608 note; 101 Stat. 233) is amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (2) and (3) by inserting ``or cooperative 
     agreement'' after ``contract'' each place it appears; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Conversion of contracts.--The Secretary may convert 
     existing contracts entered into under this subsection into 
     cooperative agreements.''.

     SEC. 262. FREEWAY SERVICE PATROLS.

       (a) General Rule.--Except to the extent that the Secretary 
     shall find that it is not feasible, any funds expended in a 
     fiscal year directly or indirectly for freeway service 
     patrols from amounts made available to a State under titles I 
     and III of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
     Act of 1991 shall be expended with privately owned or 
     privately operated business concerns. The preceding sentence 
     shall not apply to any publicly owned or operated freeway 
     service patrol that was in operation before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``freeway service patrol'' means automotive road service 
     vehicles and automotive towing vehicles operated in a 
     continuous, dedicated service as part of an incident 
     management program.

     SEC. 263. PAN AMERICAN HIGHWAY.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on the 
     adequacy of and the need for improvements to the Pan American 
     Highway.
       (b) Elements.--The study to be conducted under subsection 
     (a) shall at a minimum include the following elements:
       (1) Findings on the benefits of constructing a highway at 
     Darien Gap, Panama and Colombia.
       (2) Recommendations for a self-financing arrangement for 
     completion and maintenance of the Pan American Highway.
       (3) Recommendations for establishing a Pan American highway 
     authority to monitor financing, construction, maintenance, 
     and operations of the Pan American Highway.
       (4) Findings on the benefits to trade and prosperity of a 
     more efficient Pan American Highway.
       (5) Findings on the benefits to United States industry 
     through the use of United States technology and equipment in 
     construction of improvements to the Pan American Highway.
       (6) Findings on environmental considerations, including 
     environmental considerations relating to the Darien Gap.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study conducted under 
     this section.

     SEC. 264. SECTION 3 PROGRAM AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Letters of Intent.--Section 3(a)(4)(E) of the Federal 
     Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App. 1602(a)(4)(E)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by striking ``letters of intent'' 
     and all that follows through ``shall not exceed the'' and 
     inserting ``letters of intent, early systems work agreements, 
     and full funding grant agreements shall not exceed the''; and
       (2) in the second sentence by striking ``new letters 
     issued'' and all that follows through ``shall not exceed 
     any'' and inserting ``new letters issued and contingent 
     commitments included in early systems work agreements and 
     full funding agreements shall not exceed any''.
       (b) Assured Timetable for Final Design Stage.--Section 
     3(a)(6)(C) of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App. 
     1602(a)(6)(C)) is amended by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``or, if an environmental impact 
     statement is not required for such project, the date of 
     completion of an environmental assessment for such project or 
     of a finding of no significant impact''.
       (c) Oregon Light Rail Program.--Section 3(a)(8)(C)(v) of 
     such Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Westside'' the first place it appears;
       (2) by striking ``and'' following ``101-584;''; and
       (3) by inserting before the period at the end the following 
     ``; and the locally preferred alternative for the South/North 
     Corridor Project between Clackamas County, Oregon, Portland, 
     Oregon, and Clark County, Washington''.
       (d) Rail Modernization.--Section 3(h) of such Act is 
     amended in paragraph (6) by striking ``paragraph'' and 
     inserting ``subsection''.
       (e) Nonapplicability.--Section 3(i)(5)(C) of such Act is 
     amended by striking ``the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1991'' 
     and inserting the following: ``title 23, United States 
     Code,''.
       (f) Transitional Provision for Programs of Interrelated 
     Projects.--Section 3011(b) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. App. 1602 
     note; 105 Stat. 2098) is amended by inserting after 
     ``interrelated projects'' the following: ``but excluding any 
     project for which a timetable for project review or for 
     Federal funding is provided for by a provision of law other 
     than section 3(a)(6) of the Federal Transit Act and for which 
     such timetable is different than the timetable established by 
     such section''.
       (g) Conforming Amendments.--Section 3007 of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 
     2091) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5)(B) by striking the comma which 
     precedes the closing quotation marks and the semicolon; and
       (2) in paragraph (6) by striking the comma which precedes 
     the closing quotation marks and the final period.

     SEC. 265. METROPOLITAN PLANNING.

       (a) Technical Amendments.--Section 8 of the Federal Transit 
     Act (49 U.S.C. App. 1607) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (f)(5) by inserting ``of title 23, United 
     States Code'' after ``133'';
       (2) in subsection (f)(9) by striking ``of this title'' and 
     inserting ``of such title'';
       (3) in subsection (f)(11) by inserting ``passengers and'' 
     before ``freight'';
       (4) in subsection (g)(5) by redesignating subparagraphs (i) 
     and (ii) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
       (5) in subsection (i)(3) by striking ``this title and the 
     Federal Transit Act'' and inserting ``title 23, United States 
     Code, and this Act'';
       (6) in subsection (i)(4) by striking ``or pursuant to the 
     Federal Transit'' and inserting ``, or pursuant to this'';
       (7) in subsection (i)(5) by inserting ``of title 23, United 
     States Code,'' after ``section 134'';
       (8) in subsection (i)(5) by inserting ``of such title'' 
     after ``104(b)(3)'';
       (9) in subsection (i)(5) by inserting ``of such title'' 
     after ``133(d)(3)'' each place it appears;
       (10) in subsection (i)(5) by striking ``the Federal 
     Transit'' the first 2 places it appears and inserting 
     ``this'';
       (11) in subsection (i)(5) by striking ``section 8(o) of the 
     Federal Transit Act'' and inserting ``subsection (o) of this 
     section'';
       (12) in subsection (m)(1) by striking ``or the Federal 
     Transit'' and inserting ``, or this'';
       (13) in each of subsections (p)(2) and (p)(4) by striking 
     ``section 8'' the first place it appears and inserting ``this 
     section'';
       (14) in subsection (p)(2) by striking ``section 8 of this 
     Act'' and inserting ``this section'';
       (15) in subsection (p)(3) by striking ``subparagraph (B)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraph (2)''; and
       (16) in subsection (p)(5) by striking ``paragraph'' and 
     inserting ``section''.
       (b) Factors To Be Considered.--Section 8(f) of such Act is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(16) Recreational travel and tourism.''.
       (c) Long Range Plan.--Section 8(g)(2)(B) of such Act is 
     amended by striking ``long-range'' and inserting ``long 
     range''.
       (d) Transfer of Funds.--Section 8(k) of such Act is amended 
     by striking the last sentence.
       (e) Nonattainment Area Requirements.--Section 8(l) of such 
     Act is amended by striking ``transit'' and inserting 
     ``highway''.

     SEC. 266. FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Transit Security Systems.--Section 9(e)(3) of the 
     Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App. 1607a(e)(3)) is amended 
     by inserting before ``and any other'' in the last sentence 
     the following: ``employing law enforcement or security 
     personnel in areas within or adjacent to such systems;''.
       (b) Grandfather of Certain Urbanized Areas.--Section 
     9(s)(2) of such Act is amended by striking ``fiscal year 
     1993,'' and inserting ``each of fiscal years 1993 and 
     1994,''.
       (c) Ferryboat Operations.--For purposes of calculating 
     apportionments under section 9 of the Federal Transit Act for 
     fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1994, 50 percent 
     of the ferryboat revenue vehicle miles and 50 percent of the 
     ferryboat route miles attributable to service provided to the 
     city of Avalon, California, for which the operator receives 
     public assistance shall be included in the calculation of 
     ``fixed guideway vehicle revenue miles'' and ``fixed guideway 
     route miles'' attributable to the Los Angeles urbanized area 
     under sections 9(b)(2) and 15 of such Act.

     SEC. 267. MASS TRANSIT ACCOUNT BLOCK GRANTS.

       Section 9B(a) of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App. 
     1607a-2(a)) is amended by striking ``subsections (b) and (c) 
     of''.

     SEC. 268. GRANTS FOR RESEARCH AND TRAINING.

       (a) National Center.--Section 11(b)(10)(A) of the Federal 
     Transit Act (49 U.S.C. 1607c(b)(10)(A)) is amended by 
     striking ``technology'' and inserting ``Technology''.
       (b) Applicability of Obligation Ceiling to Funding for 
     University Transportation Centers.--Section 11(b)(12) of such 
     Act is amended by striking ``102'' and inserting ``1002''.
       (c) International Institute for Surface Transportation 
     Policy Studies.--Section 11(c) of such Act is amended--
       (1) in the heading to paragraph (1) by striking ``Institute 
     for national'' and inserting ``International institute for'';
       (2) in paragraph (1) by striking ``an institute for 
     national'' and inserting ``an international institute for'';
       (3) in paragraph (3) by striking ``through the Institute 
     for Transportation Research and Education and'' and inserting 
     a comma;
       (4) in paragraph (3) by inserting a comma after ``South 
     Florida''; and
       (5) in paragraph (6) by striking ``through the Institute 
     for Transportation Research and Education''.

     SEC. 269. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Contracting for Engineering and Design Services.--
     Section 12(b) of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App. 
     1608(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) Special rules for engineering and design contracts.--
       ``(A) Performance and audits.--Any contract or subcontract 
     awarded in accordance with paragraph (4), whether funded in 
     whole or in part with Federal transit funds, shall be 
     performed and audited in compliance with cost principles 
     contained in the Federal acquisition regulations of part 31 
     of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(B) Indirect cost rates.--Instead of performing its own 
     audits, a recipient of funds under a contract or subcontract 
     awarded in accordance with paragraph (4) shall accept 
     indirect cost rates established in accordance with the 
     Federal acquisition regulations for 1-year applicable 
     accounting periods by a cognizant government agency or 
     independent certified public accountant if such rates are not 
     currently under dispute. Once a firm's indirect cost rates 
     are accepted, the recipient of such funds shall apply such 
     rates for the purposes of contract estimation, negotiation, 
     administration, reporting, and contract payment and shall not 
     be limited by administrative or de facto ceilings in 
     accordance with section 15.901(c) of such title 48. A 
     recipient of such funds requesting or using the cost and rate 
     data described in this subparagraph shall notify any affected 
     firm before such request or use. Such data shall be 
     confidential and shall not be accessible or provided, in 
     whole or in part, to any other firm or to any government 
     agency which is not part of the group of agencies sharing 
     cost data under this subparagraph, except by written 
     permission of the audited firm. If prohibited by law, such 
     cost and rate data shall not be disclosed under any 
     circumstances.
       ``(C) State option.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall take 
     effect 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph with respect to all States; except that if a State, 
     during such 2-year period, adopts by statute an alternative 
     process intended to promote engineering and design quality 
     and ensure maximum competition by professional companies of 
     all sizes providing engineering and design services, such 
     subparagraphs shall not apply with respect to such State.''.
       (b) Rail Trackage Rights Agreements.--Section 12(c)(1) of 
     such Act is amended by inserting ``payments for the capital 
     portions of rail trackage rights agreements,'' after 
     ``rights-of-way,''.
       (c) Technical Amendment.--The first sentence of section 
     12(f)(1) of such Act is amended by striking ``such State of 
     local'' and inserting ``such State or local''.
       (d) Turnkey System Project.--Section 12(l) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(C) by striking ``is'' and inserting 
     ``may be''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``the date of the 
     enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``the date of the 
     enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
     Act of 1991''.
       (e) Sale of Capital Assets.--Section 12 of such Act is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(n) Sale of Capital Assets.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a recipient of assistance under this 
     Act determines that facilities and equipment and other assets 
     (including land) acquired, in whole or in part, with such 
     assistance are no longer needed for the purposes for which 
     they were acquired, the Secretary shall authorize the sale of 
     the assets with no further obligation to the Federal 
     Government if the Secretary determines that--
       ``(A) there are no purposes eligible for assistance under 
     this Act for which the asset should be used; and
       ``(B) the proceeds from the sale of the asset will be used 
     by the recipient to procure items eligible for capital 
     assistance under this Act.
       ``(2) Relationship to other laws.--The provisions of this 
     subsection shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any 
     other provision of law governing use and disposition of 
     facilities and equipment under an assistance agreement.''.

     SEC. 270. PERIOD OF AVAILABILITY AND REAPPORTIONMENT OF 
                   SECTION 16 FUNDS.

       Section 16 of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App. 1612) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b) by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``; and'' at the end of 
     paragraph (2) and inserting a period;
       (3) in subsection (b) by striking paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following:
     ``Eligible capital expenses under this subsection may 
     include, at the option of the recipient, the acquisition of 
     transportation services under a contract, lease, or other 
     arrangement.'';
       (4) in subsection (c)(4) by striking ``the enactment of the 
     Federal Transit Act'' and inserting ``the date of the 
     enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
     Act of 1991'';
       (5) by adding at the end of subsection (c) the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(5) Period of availability.--Sums apportioned under this 
     subsection shall be available for obligation by the State for 
     a period of 2 years following the close of the fiscal year 
     for which the sums are apportioned and any amounts remaining 
     unobligated at the end of such period shall be reapportioned 
     among the States for the succeeding fiscal year.'';
       (6) in subsection (e) by striking ``handicapped and elderly 
     individuals'' and inserting ``elderly persons and persons 
     with disabilities''; and
       (7) in subsection (e) by striking ``such individuals'' and 
     inserting ``such persons''.

     SEC. 271. RURAL TRANSIT PROGRAM.

       The second sentence of section 18(a) of the Federal Transit 
     Act (49 U.S.C. App. 1614(a)) is amended by striking the final 
     period.

     SEC. 272. NONDISCRIMINATION.

       Section 19 of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App. 1615) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(1)'' each place it appears;
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) as 
     subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e), respectively;
       (3) in subsection (c) as so redesignated--
       (A) by striking ``(A)'' and inserting ``(1)'';
       (B) by striking ``(B)'' and inserting ``(2)'';
       (C) by striking ``paragraph (a)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (1)'';
       (D) by striking ``(i)'' and inserting ``(A)'';
       (E) by striking ``(ii)'' and inserting ``(B)'';
       (F) by striking ``(iii)'' and inserting ``(C)''; and
       (G) by striking ``(iv)'' and inserting ``(D)''; and
       (4) in subsection (d) as so redesignated by striking 
     ``(a)(3)(B)(ii)'' and inserting ``(c)(2)(B)''.

     SEC. 273. AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) Formula Grant Program From Trust Fund.--Section 
     21(a)(1) of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App. 
     1617(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``8 9B,'' and inserting ``6, 8, 9B, 10,''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting ``20,'' after ``18,''.
       (b) Formula Grant Program From General Fund.--Section 
     21(a)(2) of such Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``8 9,'' and inserting ``6, 8, 9, 10,''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting ``20,'' after ``18,''.
       (c) Setaside for Planning, Programming, and Research.--
     Section 21(c) of such Act is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``beginning after September 30, 1992,'' 
     after ``each fiscal year'';
       (2) by striking ``or appropriated'' each place it appears;
       (3) in paragraph (3) by striking ``the State program 
     under''; and
       (4) in paragraph (4) by striking ``the national program 
     under''.
       (d) Other Setasides.--Section 21(d) of such Act is amended 
     by striking ``or appropriated'' each place it appears.
       (e) Completion of Interstate Transfer Transit Projects.--
     Section 21(e) of such Act is amended by striking 
     ``$160,000,000'' and all that follows through the period at 
     the end and inserting ``for fiscal years beginning after 
     September 30, 1991, not to exceed $324,843,000. Such sums 
     shall remain available until expended.''.

     SEC. 274. PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT.

       Section 23 of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App. 1619) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``or 18'' and inserting 
     ``and 18''; and
       (2) in subsection (h) by striking ``subsections (a) (1) 
     through (5)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)''.

     SEC. 275. PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) State Program.--Section 26(a) of the Federal Transit 
     Act (49 U.S.C. App. 1622(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Allocation of Planning Funds.--
       ``(1) Transit cooperative research program.--Fifty percent 
     of the funds made available under sections 21(b)(3)(D) and 
     21(c)(3) shall be available for the transit cooperative 
     research program to be administered as follows:
       ``(A) Independent governing board.--The Secretary shall 
     establish an independent governing board for such program to 
     recommend such transit research, development, and technology 
     transfer activities as the Secretary deems appropriate.
       ``(B) National academy of sciences.--The Secretary may make 
     grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements with, the 
     National Academy of Sciences to carry out such activities as 
     the Secretary determines are appropriate.
       ``(2) State planning and research.--The remaining 50 
     percent of funds made available under sections 21(b)(3)(D) 
     and 21(c)(3) shall be apportioned to the States for grants 
     and contracts consistent with the purposes of sections 6, 8, 
     10, 11, and 20 of this Act in the ratio which the population 
     in urbanized areas in each State bears to the total 
     population in urbanized areas in all the States, as shown by 
     the latest available decennial census, except that no State 
     shall receive less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the amount 
     apportioned under this subsection. In any case in which a 
     statewide transit agency is responsible under State law for 
     the financing, construction, and operation, directly, by 
     lease, contract, or otherwise, of statewide public 
     transportation services, such agency shall be the recipient 
     for receiving and dispensing funds under this paragraph.
       ``(3) Allocation within a state.--A State may authorize a 
     portion of its funds made available under paragraph (2) to be 
     used to supplement funds available under paragraph (1), as 
     the State deems appropriate.''.
       (b) National Program.--Section 26(b) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``section 21(c)(4)'' and 
     inserting ``sections 21(b)(3)(E) and 21(c)(4)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``annually'' after 
     ``$2,000,000''.
       (c) Pilot Project.--Section 26(c)(4) of such Act is amended 
     by striking ``the date of the enactment of this Act'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``the date of the enactment of 
     the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1991''.

     SEC. 276. NEEDS SURVEY AND TRANSFERABILITY STUDY.

       Section 27(b) of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App. 
     1623(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``(3)'';
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``such sections'' and 
     inserting ``section 9(j) of this Act''; and
       (3) in paragraph (2) by striking ``With'' and inserting 
     ``with''.

     SEC. 277. STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR RAIL FIXED GUIDEWAY 
                   SYSTEM.

       Section 28 of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App. 
     1624(b)) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading by inserting ``RAIL'' before 
     ``FIXED GUIDEWAY''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1) by inserting ``rail'' before 
     ``fixed guideway''.

     SEC. 278. NATIONAL TRANSIT INSTITUTE.

       Section 29 of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App. 1625) 
     is amended in the heading to subsection (b) by striking 
     ``Funding'' and inserting ``Training of State and Local 
     Government Transportation Personnel''.

     SEC. 279. INCREASED FEDERAL SHARE.

       The Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App. 1601-1625) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 30. INCREASED FEDERAL SHARE.

       ``(a) States With Large Areas of Indian and Certain Public 
     Domain Lands.--In the case of any State containing nontaxable 
     Indian lands, individual and tribal, and public domain lands 
     (both reserved and unreserved) exclusive of national forests 
     and national parks and monuments, exceeding 5 percent of the 
     total area of all lands in the State, the Federal share 
     which, but for this subsection, would be applicable for any 
     construction project under this Act shall be increased by a 
     percentage of the remaining cost equal to the percentage that 
     the area of all such lands in the State is of its total area.
       ``(b) States With Large Areas of Indian and Public Domain 
     Lands and National Forests, Parks, and Monuments.--In the 
     case of any State containing nontaxable Indian lands, 
     individual and tribal, public domain lands (both reserved and 
     unreserved), national forests, and national parks and 
     monuments, the Federal share which, but for this subsection, 
     would be applicable for any construction project under this 
     Act shall be increased by a percentage of the remaining cost 
     equal to the percentage that the area of all such lands in 
     such State is of its total area.
       ``(c) Maximum Share.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and 
     (b) of this section, the Federal share for any construction 
     project under this Act shall not exceed 95 percent of the 
     total cost of such project.
       ``(d) Grant Recipient Agreement.--In any case where a grant 
     recipient elects to have the Federal share provided in 
     subsection (b) of this section, the grant recipient must 
     enter into an agreement with the Secretary covering a period 
     of not less than 1 year, requiring grant recipient to use 
     solely for purposes eligible for assistance (other than 
     operating assistance) under this Act (other than paying its 
     share of projects approved under this Act) during the period 
     covered by such agreement the difference between the grant 
     recipient's share as provided in subsection (b) and what its 
     share would be if it elected to pay the share provided in 
     subsection (a) for all projects subject to such agreement.''.

     SEC. 280. PERFORMANCE REPORTS ON MASS TRANSIT SYSTEMS.

       Section 308(e)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``January of each even-numbered year'' 
     and inserting ``January 1994, January 1995, and January of 
     each odd-numbered year thereafter''.

     SEC. 281. CROSS REFERENCE TO FEDERAL TRANSIT ACT.

       Section 176 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7506) is 
     amended in each of subsections (c)(2) and (d) by striking 
     ``Urban Mass Transportation'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Federal Transit''.

     SEC. 282. PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION PLAN 
                   AND INTERNATIONAL FUEL TAX AGREEMENT.

       Section 4008(j) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2155) is amended by 
     striking ``102'' in the second sentence and inserting 
     ``1002''.

     SEC. 283. INTELLIGENT VEHICLE-HIGHWAY SYSTEMS.

       (a) Operational Testing Projects.--Section 6055(d) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 
     Stat. 2192-2193) is amended by inserting ``and enter into 
     cooperative agreements and contracts with'' after ``The 
     Secretary may make grants to''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 6058 of such Act (105 Stat. 2194-
     2195) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence of subsection (d) by striking 
     ``projects undertaken pursuant to subsection (c) of this 
     section'' and inserting ``activities undertaken with funds 
     made available under subsection (b) and activities undertaken 
     with funds subject to subsection (c)'';
       (2) in subsection (e) by striking ``102'' and inserting 
     ``1002''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Nonapplicability of Other Requirements of Law.--A 
     person (including a public agency) that does not receive 
     assistance under title 23, United States Code, the Federal 
     Transit Act, or any provision of this Act (other than the 
     Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems Act of 1991) shall not be 
     subject to any Federal design standard, law, or regulation 
     applicable to persons receiving such assistance solely by 
     reason of such person receiving assistance under this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 284. TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE, AMENDMENTS.

       The analysis for chapter 1 of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Sec. 110. Saint Lawrence Seaway 
     Development Corporation.''; and
       (2) by striking ``Sec. 111.'' and inserting ``111.''.

     SEC. 285. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1982 
                   AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Motor Carrier Safety Grant Program.--Section 402 of the 
     Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C. App. 
     2302) is amended--
       (1) by moving each of subparagraphs (H) through (N) 
     (including any clauses therein) 2 ems to the left;
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)(N) by striking ``give'' and 
     inserting ``gives''; and
       (3) in subsection (d) by striking ``3'' and inserting 
     ``5''.
       (b) Cargo Carrying Unit Limitation.--Section 411(j)(5)(D) 
     of such Act (49 U.S.C. App. 2311(j)(5)(D)) is amended by 
     striking ``prohibited under'' and inserting ``subject to''.

     SEC. 286. COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT OF 1986 
                   AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Section 12011.--Section 12011 of the Commercial Motor 
     Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (49 U.S.C. App. 2710) is amended--
       (1) in each of subsections (a) and (b) by striking 
     ``104(b)(5), and 104(b)(6)'' and inserting ``104(b)(3), and 
     104(b)(5)''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(1)(A)(ii) by striking ``104(b)(6)'' 
     and inserting ``104(b)(3)''.
       (b) Section Number Redesignation.--Such Act is further 
     amended by redesignating the second section 12020, relating 
     to violation of out-of-service orders, as 12021.

     SEC. 287. CLEVELAND HARBOR, OHIO.

       Section 1079 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2018-2019) is amended--
       (1) by striking the semicolon at the end of subsection (b) 
     and inserting a period; and
       (2) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking ``279.31 feet'' and inserting ``269.31 
     feet'';
       (B) by striking ``127.28 feet'' and inserting ``137.28 
     feet'';
       (C) by striking the comma following ``Grid System'';
       (D) by striking ``33 deg.-53'-08'' east'' the first place 
     it appears and inserting ``33 deg.-53'-08'' west'';
       (E) by striking ``north-westerly'' and inserting 
     ``northwesterly''; and
       (F) by striking ``174,764 square feet (4.012 acres)'' and 
     inserting ``175,143 (4.020 acres)''.

     SEC. 288. OTHER INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY 
                   ACT TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Southern Florida Commuter Rail.--Section 3014 of 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 
     Stat. 2108) is amended by striking ``(49 U.S.C. 1607a)''.
       (b) Road Testing of LCV's.--Section 4007(d)(1) of such Act 
     (49 U.S.C. App. 2302 note) is amended by striking ``on 
     board'' and inserting ``onboard''.
       (c) National Commission on Intermodal Transportation.--
     Section 5005 of such Act (49 U.S.C. 301 note; 105 Stat. 2160-
     2162) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)(1) by striking ``11 members'' and 
     inserting ``15 members'';
       (2) in subsection (d)(1)(A) by striking ``3 members'' and 
     inserting ``7 members''; and
       (3) in subsection (i) by striking ``1993'' and inserting 
     ``1994''.
       (d) Section 6017.--Section 6017 of such Act (105 Stat. 
     2183) is amended by striking ``502(a)'' and inserting 
     ``5002(a)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is in order except those amendments printed in House Report 
103-528. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment, except as 
specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand for a 
division of the question.
  Debate time on each amendment will be equally divided and controlled 
by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment.
  It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation or a designee to offer amendments en 
bloc consisting of amendments printed in the report or germane 
modifications thereof. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, 
except that modifications shall be reported.
  Amendments en bloc shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation, shall not be subject to 
amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the 
question.
  The original proponent of an amendment included in amendments en bloc 
may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately before 
disposition of the amendments en bloc.
  The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rahall].


                amendments en bloc offered by mr. rahall

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 440, I offer 
amendments en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:

       Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Rahall:
       Amendment offered by Mr. Rahall (No. 1): Page 9, strike 
     line 21 and all that follows through line 8 on page 10.
       In item number 8, on page 28, strike ``4.000'' and insert 
     ``3.000''.
       In item number 11 on page 28, strike ``2.000'' and insert 
     ``7.000''.
       In item number 11 on page 28, strike ``1.500'' and insert 
     ``3.500''.
       In item number 19 on page 28, strike ``3.000'' and insert 
     ``2.000''.
       Page 28, strike item number 12. Do not redesignate 
     subsequent items of the table.
       In item number 36 on page 28, strike ``CA71'' and insert 
     ``CA57''.
       In item number 112 on page 30, strike ``3.000'' and insert 
     ``2.000''.
       In item number 153 on page 30, strike ``14.400'' and insert 
     ``13.400''.
       In item number 154 on page 30, strike ``4.000'' and insert 
     ``3.000''.
       In item number 156 on page 30, strike ``1.000'' and insert 
     ``2.000''.
       In item number 156 on page 30, insert ``1.000'' in the 
     column designated ``Authorization in millions from highway 
     trust fund (other than mass transit account)''.
       In item number 201 on page 31, strike ``2.000'' and insert 
     ``1.000''.
       After item number 212 on page 31, insert the following:

212A. Ohio..............  Trotwood Connector in          .750  .........
                           Montgomery Co., Ohio.                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       In item number 237 on page 32, strike ``5.000'' and insert 
     ``5.760''.
       In item number 237 on page 32, strike ``0.760''.
       In item number 238 on page 32, strike ``1.250'' and insert 
     ``.490''.
       In item number 238 on page 32, strike ``9.240'' and insert 
     ``10.000''.
       In item number 242 on page 32, strike ``3.000'' and insert 
     ``2.000''.
       At the end of title I of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 129. FUNDING.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of how the 
     existing Federal-aid highway and transit funding is utilized 
     by States and metropolitan planning organizations to address 
     transportation needs.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to 
     Congress a report containing the results of the study 
     conducted under this section.

     SEC. 130. NONDIVISIBLE LOADS.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall institute a rulemaking 
     proceeding to define the term ``vehicles and loads which 
     cannot be easily dismantled or divided'' as used in section 
     127 of title 23, United States Code, including consideration 
     of a commodity-specific definition of such term. The 
     Secretary shall complete the proceeding required by this 
     subsection not later than 270 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act. The Secretary may apply such 
     regulations to all vehicle loads operating on the National 
     Highway System if the Secretary determines that it is in the 
     public interest.
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
       Page 127, after line 6, insert the following:

     SEC. 250. ROADSIDE BARRIER TECHNOLOGY.

       Section 1058 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 109 note; 105 Stat. 2003) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``median'' and inserting 
     ``or temporary crashworthy'';
       (2) in subsection (a) by inserting ``crashworthy'' after 
     ``innovative'';
       (3) in the heading of subsection (c) by inserting 
     ``Crashworthy'' after ``Innovative'';
       (4) in subsection (c) by inserting ``crashworthy'' after 
     ``innovative'';
       (5) in subsection (c) by striking ``median'';
       (6) by inserting ``or guiderail'' after ``guardrail''; and
       (7) by inserting before the period at the end of subsection 
     (c) ``, and meets or surpasses the requirements of the 
     National Cooperative Highway Research Program 350 for 
     longitudinal barriers''.
       Redesignate subsequent sections of title II of the bill 
     accordingly. Conform the table of contents of the bill 
     accordingly.
       Page 127, line 16, strike ``is amended'' and all that 
     follows through the period on line 19 and insert the 
     following:
     is amended--
       (1) in item number 5, relating to Gloucester Point, 
     Virginia, by inserting after ``York River'' the following: 
     ``and for repair, strengthening, and rehabilitation of the 
     existing bridge''; and
       (2) in item number 10, relating to Shakopee, Minnesota, by 
     inserting ``project, including the by-pass of'' after 
     ``replacement''.
       In section 258 of the bill on page 134, redesignate 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), as paragraphs (2), (3), and 
     (4), respectively.
       Page 134, before line 1, insert the following:
       (1) in item number 5, relating to Pennsylvania, by striking 
     ``Upgrading'' and inserting ``To study the need to upgrade'' 
     and by inserting ``to a 4-lane limited access highway'' after 
     ``Airport'';
       Page 146, lines 1 and 2, strike ``International Institute 
     for Surface Transportation Policy Studies'' and insert 
     ``University Research Institutes''.
       Page 146, line 14, strike ``and''.
       Page 146, after line 14, insert the following:
       (5) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs 
     (7) and (8), respectively;
       (6) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(6) Institute for transportation policy and management.--
       ``(A) Grants.--The Massachusetts State highway department 
     shall make grants under this section jointly to the 
     University of Massachusetts, Harvard University, and the 
     Massachusetts Institute of Technology to establish and 
     operate an interdisciplinary institute to carry out research 
     and training on issues and operations in urban transportation 
     policy and on strategies for the improvement of urban 
     transportation management and to disseminate the findings 
     thereof.
       ``(B) Funding.--The Massachusetts State highway department 
     shall expend, from amounts made available to it for each of 
     the fiscal years 1995 through 1997 under section 307(c) of 
     title 23, United States Code, $1,000,000 per fiscal year to 
     carry out the purposes of this paragraph.''; and
       Page 146, line 15, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       Page 146, line 15, strike ``paragraph (6)'' and insert 
     ``paragraph (7), as redesignated by paragraph (5) of this 
     subsection,''.
       Amendment offered by Mr. Richardson (No. 2): Page 108, 
     after line 3, insert the following new subsection:
       (e) Indian Reservation Roads Planning.--The first sentence 
     of section 204(j) of such title is amended to read as 
     follows: ``An Indian tribal government receiving funds under 
     the Indian reservation roads program may use up to 10 percent 
     of its annual allocation under such program for 
     transportation planning activities pursuant to the provisions 
     of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 
     Act.''.
       Page 108, line 4, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
       Page 108, after line 14, insert the following new 
     subsections:
       (g) Set-Aside for Administrative Expenses of Indian 
     Tribes.--Section 204 of such title is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Set-Aside for Administrative Expenses of Indian 
     Tribes.--
       ``(1) In general.--Up to 1 percent of the funds made 
     available for Indian reservation roads for each fiscal year 
     shall be set aside by the Secretary of the Interior for 
     transportation-related administrative expenses of Indian 
     tribal governments.
       ``(2) Distribution.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     make available to each Indian tribal government with an 
     approved application under paragraph (3) an equal percentage 
     of any sum set aside pursuant to paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Applications.--To receive funds under this paragraph, 
     an Indian tribal government must submit to the Secretary of 
     the Interior for approval an application in accordance with 
     the requirements of the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act. The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     approve any such application that demonstrates that the 
     applicant has the capability to carry out transportation 
     planning activities or is in the process of establishing such 
     a capability.''.
       (h) Transportation Enhancement Activities.--Section 204 of 
     such title is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(m) Transportation Enhancement Activities.--In making 
     expenditures for transportation enhancement activities as 
     required under section 133, a State shall consider any 
     application submitted to the State by an Indian tribal 
     government seeking assistance to conduct such activities.''.
       (i) Approval of Indian Reservation Road Projects by the 
     Secretary.--Section 204 of such title is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(n) Approval of Indian Reservation Road Projects by the 
     Secretary.--
       ``(1) Establishment of pilot program.--The Secretary shall 
     establish a pilot program (hereinafter in this subsection 
     referred to as the `program') for the purpose described in 
     paragraph (2) and shall carry out such program in each of 
     fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997.
       ``(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the program shall be to 
     permit an Indian tribal government to apply directly to the 
     Secretary for authorization to conduct projects on Indian 
     reservation roads using amounts allocated to the Indian 
     tribal government under the Indian reservation roads program.
       ``(3) Treatment as states.--Except as otherwise provided by 
     the Secretary, an Indian tribal government submitting an 
     application to the Secretary under the program shall be 
     subject to the same requirements as a State applying for 
     approval of a Federal-aid highway project.
       ``(4) Selection of participants.--
       ``(A) Applications.--An Indian tribal government seeking to 
     participate in the program shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application which is in such form and contains such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(B) Maximum number of participants.--The Secretary shall 
     select not more than 10 Indian tribal governments to 
     participate in the program.
       ``(5) Technical assistance.--The Secretary, in cooperation 
     with the Secretary of the Interior, shall provide technical 
     assistance to Indian tribal governments participating in the 
     program.
       ``(6) Transitional assistance.--Upon request of the 
     Secretary, the Secretary of the Interior shall provide to the 
     Secretary such assistance as may be necessary for 
     implementation of the program.
       ``(7) Report.--Not later than September 30, 1997, the 
     Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results 
     of the program. In developing such report, the Secretary 
     shall solicit the comments of Indian tribal governments 
     participating in the program.''.
       Page 108, line 15, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(j)''.
       Page 108, line 22, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(k)''.
       Amendment offered by Mr. Beilenson (No. 5): Page 9, strike 
     line 21 and all that follows through line 8 on page 10 and 
     insert the following:
       (c) Guarantee and Warranty Clauses.--Section 112 of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Guarantee and Warranty Clauses.--The Secretary shall, 
     by regulation, permit a State highway department, in 
     accordance with standards developed by the Secretary in such 
     regulations, to include a clause in a contract for the 
     construction of any Federal-aid highway project requiring the 
     contractor to warrant the materials and work performed in 
     accordance with the contractor's obligations and 
     responsibilities under the terms of the contract. The 
     warranty or guarantee clause shall be reasonably related to 
     the materials and work performed and in accordance with the 
     contractor's obligations and responsibilities under the terms 
     of the contract, and shall not be construed to require the 
     contractor to perform maintenance.''.
       (d) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall initiate a 
     rulemaking proceeding for developing standards under section 
     112(f) of title 23, United States Code, as added by 
     subsection (c) of this section.


        modification to amendments en bloc offered by mr. rahall

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer modifications to the amendments en 
bloc just offered, and ask unanimous consent for their acceptance.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modifications to the 
amendments en bloc.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments, en bloc, offered by Mr. Rahall consisting of 
     amendments numbered 2, 5 and 1, printed in the Rules 
     Committee report, with modifications to amendment number 1 as 
     follows:
       At the end, add the following:
       ``In item 194 on page 31, strike ``10.000'' and insert 
     ``6.185''.
       After item 194 on page 31, insert the following:

``194A. North Carolina Peace St., Crossing in Thomasville....2.415 (GF)
``194B. North Carolina Unity St., Crossing in Thomasville..1.400 (GF)''

  Mr. RAHALL (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modifications to the amendments en bloc be considered 
as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the original request of the 
gentleman from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The text of amendment No. 1 (offered by Mr. Rahall) as contained in 
the amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Rahall and as modified by the 
foregoing modifications is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rahall (No. 1): Page 9, strike 
     line 21 and all that follows through line 8 on page 10.
       In item number 8, on page 28, strike ``4.000'' and insert 
     ``3.000''.
       In item number 11 on page 28, strike ``2.000'' and insert 
     ``7.000''.
       In item number 11 on page 28, strike ``1.500'' and insert 
     ``3.500''.
       In item number 19 on page 28, strike ``3.000'' and insert 
     ``2.000''.
       Page 28, strike item number 12. Do not redesignate 
     subsequent items of the table.
       In item number 36 on page 28, strike ``CA71'' and insert 
     ``CA57''.
       In item number 112 on page 30, strike ``3.000'' and insert 
     ``2.000''.
       In item number 153 on page 30, strike ``14.400'' and insert 
     ``13.400''.
       In item number 154 on page 30, strike ``4.000'' and insert 
     ``3.000''.
       In item number 156 on page 30, strike ``1.000'' and insert 
     ``2.000''.
       In item number 156 on page 30, insert ``1.000'' in the 
     column designated ``Authorization in millions from highway 
     trust fund (other than mass transit account)''.
       In item number 201 on page 31, strike ``2.000'' and insert 
     ``1.000''.
       After item number 212 on page 31, insert the following:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
212A.Ohio..................  Trotwood Connector in          .750        
                              Montgomery Co., Ohio.                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       In item number 237 on page 32, strike ``5.000'' and insert 
     ``5.760''.
       In item number 237 on page 32, strike ``0.760''.
       In item number 238 on page 32, strike ``1.250'' and insert 
     ``.490''.
       In item number 238 on page 32, strike ``9.240'' and insert 
     ``10.000''.
       In item number 242 on page 32, strike ``3.000'' and insert 
     ``2.000''.
       At the end of title I of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 129. FUNDING.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of how the 
     existing Federal-aid highway and transit funding is utilized 
     by States and metropolitan planning organizations to address 
     transportation needs.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to 
     Congress a report containing the results of the study 
     conducted under this section.

     SEC. 130. NONDIVISIBLE LOADS.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall institute a rulemaking 
     proceeding to define the term ``vehicles and loads which 
     cannot be easily dismantled or divided'' as used in section 
     127 of title 23, United States Code, including consideration 
     of a commodity-specific definition of such term. The 
     Secretary shall complete the proceeding required by this 
     subsection not later than 270 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act. The Secretary may apply such 
     regulations to all vehicle loads operating on the National 
     Highway System if the Secretary determines that it is in the 
     public interest.
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
       Page 127, after line 6, insert the following:

     SEC. 250. ROADSIDE BARRIER TECHNOLOGY.

       Section 1058 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 109 note; 105 Stat. 2003) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``median'' and inserting 
     ``or temporary crashworthy'';
       (2) in subsection (a) by inserting ``crashworthy'' after 
     ``innovative'';
       (3) in the heading of subsection (c) by inserting 
     ``Crashworthy'' after ``Innovative'';
       (4) in subsection (c) by inserting ``crashworthy'' after 
     ``innovative'';
       (5) in subsection (c) by striking ``median'';
       (6) by inserting ``or guiderail'' after ``guardrail''; and
       (7) by inserting before the period at the end of subsection 
     (c) ``, and meets or surpasses the requirements of the 
     National Cooperative Highway Research Program 350 for 
     longitudinal barriers''.
       Redesignate subsequent sections of title II of the bill 
     accordingly. Conform the table of contents of the bill 
     accordingly.
       Page 127, line 16, strike ``is amended'' and all that 
     follows through the period on line 19 and insert the 
     following:

      is amended--
       (1) in item number 5, relating to Gloucester Point, 
     Virginia, by inserting after ``York River'' the following: 
     ``and for repair, strengthening, and rehabilitation of the 
     existing bridge''; and
       (2) in item number 10, relating to Shakopee, Minnesota, by 
     inserting ``project, including the by-pass of'' after 
     ``replacement''.
       In section 258 of the bill on page 134, redesignate 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), as paragraphs (2), (3), and 
     (4), respectively.
       Page 134, before line 1, insert the following:
       (1) in item number 5, relating to Pennsylvania, by striking 
     ``Upgrading'' and inserting ``To study the need to upgrade'' 
     and by inserting ``to a 4-lane limited access highway'' after 
     ``Airport'';
       Page 146, lines 1 and 2, strike ``International Institute 
     for Surface Transportation Policy Studies'' and insert 
     ``University Research Institutes''.
       Page 146, line 14, strike ``and''.
       Page 146, after line 14, insert the following:
       (5) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs 
     (7) and (8), respectively;
       (6) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(6) Institute for transportation policy and management.--
       ``(A) Grants.--The Massachusetts State highway department 
     shall make grants under this section jointly to the 
     University of Massachusetts, Harvard University, and the 
     Massachusetts Institute of Technology to establish and 
     operate an interdisciplinary institute to carry out research 
     and training on issues and operations in urban transportation 
     policy and on strategies for the improvement of urban 
     transportation management and to disseminate the findings 
     thereof.
       ``(B) Funding.--The Massachusetts State highway department 
     shall expend, from amounts made available to it for each of 
     the fiscal years 1995 through 1997 under section 307(c) of 
     title 23, United States Code, $1,000,000 per fiscal year to 
     carry out the purposes of this paragraph.''; and
       Page 146, line 15, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       Page 146, line 15, strike ``paragraph (6)'' and insert 
     ``paragraph (7), as redesignated by paragraph (5) of this 
     subsection,''.
       At the end, add the following:
       ``In item 194 on page 31, strike ``10.000'' and insert 
     ``6.185''.
       After item 194 on page 31, insert the following:

``194A. North Carolina Peace St. Crossing in Thomasville.....2.415 (GF)
194B. North Carolina Unity St. Crossing in Thomasville''.....1.400 (GF)

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Rahall], will be recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Petri,] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  (Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan committee en bloc amendment addresses 
several matters such as providing for technical and conforming changes 
relating to project descriptions, requiring the Secretary to conduct a 
transportation study, reallocating funds for certain projects and 
establishing an urban transportation institute.
  In addition, this amendment includes a provision sponsored by the 
gentleman from New Mexico, Bill Richardson, and myself, relating to the 
Indian Reservation Roads Program.
  Currently, the FHWA takes about 3 percent of the funding dedicated 
for this program off-the-top and sends it over to the Interior 
Department where the great white chiefs at the BIA take an additional 6 
percent off-the-top before doling it out to the tribes.
  These are sovereign nations, for which the United States has a trust 
relationship with. Yet, the way we deal with them in highway matters, 
in my view, hardly constitutes a trust relationship.
  This amendment would simply establish a pilot project under which a 
tribe, which can meet all of the requirements we place on State highway 
departments, will be treated as a State in terms of conducting its own 
transportation projects.
  Finally, the en bloc amendments include a provision dealing with the 
issue of motor vehicle weights that has been the subject of much 
discussion. I commend the gentleman from Minnesota, Jim Oberstar, for 
working with us on this matter.
  I urge the adoption of these amendments.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the distinguished ranking Republican on the 
committee.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I would like to point out that this en bloc amendment also includes a 
limited warranty/guarantee provision for contractors on Federal aid 
construction contracts. It is important to note that in crafting the 
warranty provision, the committee took into account the role of 
contractors involved in Federal-aid highway construction. Contractors 
are not responsible for design or specifications. These are done by 
consulting firms or by the State Departments of Transportation. 
Therefore, any warranty applied to them, to the contractors, that is, 
should be limited to the responsibilities for which they are 
responsible under the contract.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment offered by the chairman of the 
Surface Transportation Subcommittee.
  This amendment makes minor and technical revisions to H.R. 4385 and 
contains policy provisions which have been agreed to by the committee. 
These include provisions championed by Representative Beilenson which 
would permit States to require a contractor to warrant the materials 
and work performed in accordance with the contractor's responsibilities 
under the contract.
  Congressman Beilenson has been involved in this issue for the last 
several years and has testified a number of times before our 
subcommittee. I know that this is a matter of great concern to him.
  Also included is a provision supported by Congressman Richardson and 
Congressman Hamburg concerning Indian reservation roads. Last year, 
during ISTEA oversight hearings, we heard testimony from various Indian 
tribes as to the problems they had encountered in trying to plan for 
and meet their transportation needs.
  This amendment addresses those concerns and should be of great 
benefit through streamlining approvals, lifting administrative burdens, 
providing more planning funds, and allowing greater authority for some 
Indian tribal governments to control Indian road projects.
  Finally, one other provision included in this amendment directs the 
Secretary of Transportation to determine what the term ``non-divisible 
load'' actually means and to apply these requirements to vehicle loads 
on the National Highway System if it is in the public interest to do 
so.
  This provision has been developed from a much broader proposal which 
would have imposed size and weight restrictions on all NHS roads. This 
would have been a major expansion of Federal regulation of trucking 
operations on 115,000 miles of roads which are now subject only to 
State regulation. I appreciate the willingness of Congressman Oberstar 
to work with interested parties in reaching the compromise which is 
included in this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta] our distinguished chairman of the full 
committee.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation. 
In addition, the committee has been able to reach agreement on several 
important policy issues, and I would like to thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson] for his work on the warranty and guarantee 
issues.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Richardson] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Hamburg] for their 
leadership on transportation issues affecting native Americans.
  Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Oberstar] and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] for their 
amendment requesting a rulemaking on the issue of divisible truck 
loads.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], with whom we have worked 
very closely on this provision.
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, just over 2 year ago, the vast majority 
of the House joined me in passing an amendment to the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 [ISTEA] that would have 
permitted States to include contractor guarantees in their Federal aid 
highway contracts. The amendment passed by a vote of 400 to 26 but, 
unfortunately, was dropped from the final bill by House and Senate 
conferees.
  The amendment I am offering today is a very similar amendment--and I 
hope it meets with eventual success this time.
  Federal highway dollars have traditionally been reserved for 
construction, rather than maintenance, and the Federal Highway 
Administration has prohibited States from requiring any warranties from 
contractors when awarding federally funded contracts, because 
warranties might cause bidders to raise the initial price of a project.
  The effect of this policy is that we often reward the use of the 
cheapest, lowest quality materials in highway construction, and prevent 
States from building quality performance standards into their 
construction contracts.
  Transportation officials in the Bush administration supported 
changing this outdated policy, believing that the introduction of 
contractor guarantees into the bidding process might spur innovation, 
superior quality, and the use of the kind of advanced technology other 
countries are already aggressively taking advantage of.
  Building better quality roads requires more than just allowing 
contractor warranties. We need to explore the possibility of issuing 
more contracts for both design and construction--and ask firms that win 
these contracts to guarantee their designs, materials, and workmanship. 
The benefits could be enourmous.
  In Europe, where highway contracts are awarded on the basis of a 
combination of cost, quality and a contractor's 3 to 5-year full 
replacement guarantee, roads cost an average of 30 percent more to 
construct, but they last twice as long as they do here. Sounder 
subbases, thicker pavements, advanced polymer additives, and stronger 
asphalt produce highways that are smoother and quieter, and are 
stubbornly resistant to ruts, cracks, and potholes. European roads even 
handle heavier loads than are permitted on our highways.
  Meanwhile, our own strict low-bid, construction-only system gives 
contractors no incentive at all to consider long-term performance when 
preparing their bids. We literally reward the use of the cheapest, 
lowest quality materials, and the least expensive labor; we actually 
penalize any effort to improve road quality or offer superior 
workmanship.
  It is an inflexible, unwise, and shortsighted policy that costs 
taxpayers billions of dollars in unnecessary highway repair bills and 
results in intolerable and costly traffic delays.
  It is no surprise that while total Government expenditures for roads 
have doubled over the past decade, half of all roads in America are 
rated in fair to poor condition. A 1991 report by the Office of 
Technology Assessment on the quality of our public works infrastructure 
found that ``when construction quality is poor and repairs are needed 
constantly * * * the costs of providing alternative service or of 
traffic diversion and delay can equal the capital cost, doubling the 
total expense of a given project.''
  As we embark on a multibillion dollar investment in the restoration 
of the Nation's infrastructure, I believe we owe it to the taxpayers to 
do everything we can to adopt reforms that will save us money, help 
make the road construction industry more competitive, stimulate 
investment, and make our transportation infrasturcture more durable and 
efficient.
  Permitting States to demand a guarantee of a minimum standard of 
quality in highway projects would not, by itself, cure our country's 
infrastructure ills. But Americans should be outraged that, in an era 
of huge budget deficits, we have failed to fulfill our responsibility 
to see that Federal highway money is well spent.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to thank very much the chairman of the 
full committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, my classmate, 
the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] and my two good friends 
across the aisle, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], both for their acceptance of our 
amendment and more especially, more importantly, for their leadership 
in the effort to improve the quality of our Nation's highways.
  I do happen to think that this particular amendment that I have had 
the privilege of proposing is important, but it is only one of several 
important initiatives that are being pursued by the committee in this 
bill to encourage the use of practices that will enhance the quality of 
our Nation's highways.
  Along with concepts such as value engineering, performance-related 
specifications and life-cycle cost analysis, the use of warranties 
will, I believe, help the States more successfully build quality 
performance standards into their construction contracts.
  I thank the gentlemen very much for their good work in this area of 
improved quality of our Nation's highways and thank them again for 
their help.
  I strongly support not only this amendment but the entire bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support to the 
Richardson/Hamburg amendment which has been offered as part of the en 
bloc amendments by my good friend from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  As chairman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Native American 
Affairs I have advocated for the policy of authorizing Indian tribes to 
take over and manage government programs that affect their members and 
their lands. The Richardson/Hamburg amendment would permit up to 10 
Indian tribes to participate in a pilot project in which they would be 
able to develop and administer their own transportation programs. 
Eligible Indian tribes will be subject to the same requirements as a 
State when applying for the approval of projects, and Indian tribes 
will deal directly with the Secretary of Transportation. This is 
consistent with the President's Executive order signed on April 29, 
1994, outlining the policy that all Federal agencies are to work on a 
Government-to-Government basis with Indian tribes.
  Additional components of the amendment would allow Indian tribes 
which are in the process of building capacity in this area the ability 
to receive resources to gain transportation management expertise and to 
conduct the tribe's long-range transportation planning needs.
  I want to thank Mr. Hamburg for his assistance in putting this 
amendment together. He has served the Indian tribes in his district 
well on this issue as well as other Indian matters which have come 
before us.
  I also want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface 
Transportation, Mr. Rahall and the chairman of the Public Works and 
Transportation Committee, Mr. Mineta, for all of their help and 
support. Your leadership on issues affecting native Americans over the 
years should serve as a model for other committees.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Richardson-Hamburg amendment and 
the Rahall en block amendments.
  These amendments reflect changes to section 204 of the Federal Lands 
program dealing with the Indian Reservation Roads program.
  The first amendment amends section 204(j) to permit Indian tribal 
governments to use up to 10 percent of their annual allocation for 
Indian reservation roads planning. This would allow tribes to conduct 
their own transportation planning. This planning is currently done by 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Under this amendment, Indian tribes would 
contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs pursuant to the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act for transportation planning 
funds.
  The second amendment requires the Secretary of the Interior to set 
aside up to 1 percent of the available Indian reservation roads 
authorization for transportation-related administrative expenses 
incurred by Indian tribal governments that have demonstrated the 
capability to use such funds effectively.
  The third amendment requires States to consider applications from 
Indian tribes for funding for transportation enhancement activities out 
of the set-aside for such activities required by ISTEA.
  The fourth amendment would permit up to 10 Indian tribes to 
participate in a 3-year pilot project, in which they would be able to 
develop and manage their own transportation programs. Eligible Indian 
tribes will be subject to the same requirements as are States in 
applying for approval of Federal-aid highway projects rather than the 
requirements of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Secretary of 
Transportation would be authorized to approve projects and deal 
directly with tribal governments. This is consistent with the 
President's executive order signed on April 29, 1994 outlining the 
policy that all Federal agencies should work on a government-to-
government basis with Indian tribes.
  The Secretary of Transportation will determine a tribe's eligibility 
by its willingness and capability to meet Federal Highway 
Administration's [FHWA] established approval requirements. The 
Secretary of Transportation with the assistance of the Secretary of the 
Interior, will provide technical assistance to participating tribes as 
may be necessary.
  The Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the results of the 
program no later than September 30, 1997.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc, as modified, 
offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  The amendments en bloc, as modified, were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings). It is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 3, printed in House Report 103-528.


                    amendment offered by mr. clement

  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Clement: Page 128, line 8, strike 
     ``(a) East-West Transamerica Corridor.--''.
       Page 128, strike line 22 and all that follows through line 
     2 on page 129.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Clement] will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes, and a 
Member opposed will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] will be 
recognized in opposition to the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to first say that I support H.R. 4385, and I 
want to commend the leadership of this committee, especially the 
chairman--Mr. Mineta and Mr. Rahall as well as ranking minority member 
Mr. Shuster--for all the fine work they have done in crafting this very 
important bill.
  However, there is a provision in this bill that is very troubling to 
me. And it should be troubling to every Member concerned about Federal 
mandates and the rights of State and local officials to have a say in 
local transportation planning.
  By way of background, in 1991 Congress enacted the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act. In that legislation Congress recommended 
a mid-continent highway called Interstate 69 linking Port Huron, MI to 
Houston, TX. Seven States are affected including Tennessee.
  Currently I-69 is complete from Port Huron to Indianapolis. The 
engineering design phase is in progress from Indianapolis to 
Evansville. The route from Evansville to Houston is yet to be 
determined.
  To assist the States in selecting the best route from Evansville to 
Houston, the Federal Highway Administration approved an $800,000 grant 
to conduct a feasibility study. This study will determine the route 
from Evansville to Houston that makes the most economic sense for 
taxpayers. The consultants have been hired. They are doing the study 
right now as I speak. And the study will be completed by April 1995. So 
far, so good.
  Unfortunately, along comes this provision in H.R. 4385--like the 
bully you used to know as a kid--which says:

       Nuts to the feasibility study, nuts to the States, and nuts 
     to local communities impacted by this route.

  What the provision says is that no matter what the feasibility study 
determines, no matter what you think as a highway transportation 
planner, no matter what the Governor or State highway commissioner 
wants, no matter what anybody thinks--the Federal Government dictates 
that this route must go through these certain cities in Kentucky. And 
that is not right!

  Many communities, public officials, and civic organizations in both 
Kentucky and Tennessee object to the language in H.R. 4385. If this 
language is not deleted, it would preclude the States from reviewing 
the results of the feasibility study and then defining the best route 
for I-69.
  My State's transportation commissioner, Carl Johnson, wrote me a 
letter dated May 23, 1994 stating that they oppose this provision in 
H.R. 4385. I understand that the Kentucky's transportation commissioner 
was not even consulted when this route was designated in the 
legislation. My God, what are we doing here!
  I have been contacted by county officials in Tennessee, city 
officials in Kentucky, military associations in Kentucky and Tennessee, 
State representatives and State senators from Kentucky, chambers of 
commerce from both Kentucky and Tennessee--all opposing this provision 
in H.R. 4385 and in support of the feasibility study. They want this 
provision stricken from the bill.
  If you are still undecided on how you will vote on this issue, then 
ask yourself this:
  Why are we spending $800,000 to complete a feasibility study to 
determine the best route and, at the same time, designating the route 
in this bill?
  Is that not a waste of taxpayer money?
  Furthermore, this provision in the bill forecloses any consideration 
of other route options that may be quicker or incorporate other 
transportation modes. In fact, without the results of the feasibility 
study, nobody knows for sure if the route designated by this bill is 
even feasible.
  This issue boils down to--who decides: The feasibility study or the 
Federal Government.
  Now you will have a chance to decide. If your are concerned as I am 
with Federal mandates, State decisionmaking, and wasting Federal 
dollars, then I urge Members to vote yes on my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Barlow].
  Mr. BARLOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say how much we in Kentucky appreciate 
the work of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] and the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Rahall], the chairmen, in bringing H.R. 4385 to the 
floor, a very important bill for the economic growth of the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say that on this Amendment No. 3, and I rise 
in opposition to it, as I have said, the authorization in this bill 
that was put through the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
was put through specifically because the road I-69 as it travels from 
Evansville and down through western Kentucky, with routes still to be 
located by the Kentucky Department of Transportation, and then on down 
to Memphis, goes through some of the poorest regions in the United 
States in northwestern Tennessee, and the most economically deprived 
regions of the United States in western Kentucky, as was clearly, very 
definitely, stated and laid out by the Mississippi River Delta 
Commission, which this House spent Federal taxpayer dollars on, and we 
had Congressman Ed Jones, a former leader in the House of 
Representatives, chairman of that commission. We are going to bring 
economic development to this region to help people, help people who are 
still having outhouses, help people to have education which they need.
  It is very necessary, Mr. Chairman, and we need the economic 
development in this region. We have it with this corridor as it comes 
through. The other corridors in Tennessee that the gentleman is 
referring to, in central Tennessee and central Kentucky, are well 
served with interstate corridors, and economic development has 
followed, and economic power has followed. That is the reason for the 
gentleman's amendment, because of economic power.
  Mr. Chairman, my people do not have economic power. I am speaking for 
the people who do not have economic power, who need the necessities of 
life. That is why I oppose Amendment No. 3.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield 30 seconds?
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I must oppose the amendment 
offered by our colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement]. 
This provision was included in the technical corrections bill which was 
passed by the House last year and generated no controversy at the time. 
In fact, the provision was included with the approval of all the 
Members involved.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the chairman of the Committee 
on Public Works and Transportation.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I must rise in strong 
opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend, colleague, and 
very important member of our Public Works and Transportation Committee, 
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  When the original provision was included in last year's technical 
corrections legislation, there was no controversy. No objections were 
expressed by States adjoining the corridor or by Members from those 
States. Now, at the last moment, an objection has been raised but no 
attempt has been made to reach a consensus on this issue. For these 
reasons, the leadership of the committee opposes the amendment.
  The committee is willing to work with the gentleman and any other 
Members who may have concerns regarding the routing of the Indianapolis 
to Houston high priority corridor. On-going feasibility studies for the 
corridor, authorized by the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1994, will provide another opportunity to address 
these concerns.
  The Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] is initiating a feasibility 
study of this corridor to be completed within 15 months. A steering 
committee of all the corridor States and FHWA has been established to 
guide the work of the contractor. The study will encompass the entire 
corridor from Indianapolis to Houston and analyze a wide range of 
alternative locations and levels of improvements.
  I believe concerns can be addressed through this process and I oppose 
this amendment.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard what the chairman said and I also heard 
what the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Barlow] has said. I might say for 
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Barlow] he is a very effective Member. 
I want the gentleman to be reelected this year in his district, I 
support him, the gentleman is a strong voice for his congressional 
district, but the fact is the gentleman knows full well that I-69 is 
going to go through his State. As a matter of fact, it is going to go 
through seven States: Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, 
Louisiana, and Texas. But there is only one small area in the technical 
corrections bill where it says it must go through these certain towns 
and cities in Kentucky. I say that is wrong, particularly when the 
Federal Highway Administration is spending $800,000 to determine what 
is the most cost-effective, what is the best route on behalf of the 
taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, why cannot we wait until the feasibility study is in? 
But the feasibility study is not even going to be completed until next 
year.
  How many different groups and organizations have spoken out? There 
have been a number of them that are opposing this particular provision 
in the bill: Gov. Ned Ray McWherter in Tennessee; the Tennessee 
Transportation Commissioner; Clarksville, TN Chamber of Commerce; 
Hopkinsville, KY Chamber of Commerce; Kentucky State Representative 
Ramsey Morris; Kentucky State Representative James Bruce; Kentucky 
State Senator Joey Pendleton; and the Tennessee-Kentucky Association of 
the U.S. Army.
  Kentucky Transportation Commissioner Don Kelly was not even consulted 
when this provision was added to the bill. Mayors and county 
representatives in communities in both Kentucky and Tennessee are 
opposed to this provision.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is very clear that we do not need a small 
little stretch of highway to be designated in I-69 which stretches all 
the way from Canada to Mexico. We have got seven States and in the 
technical corrections bill, only a small area that is being designated 
that I-69 has to go through.
  Let us let the feasibility study speak for itself. Let us have the 
best route. I do not know what the best route is, and it may be through 
the district of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Barlow]. If it is, let 
the feasibility study speak for itself.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, our good friend and valued member of the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation has related to the House a number of 
State transportation officials that are in support of his amendment 
here today. I would say to the gentleman, however, that these 
expressions have come at the last minute. Not a one of those officials 
that has been quoted by the gentleman from Tennessee has come to our 
subcommittee and expressed such opposition prior to last-minute 
consideration of the bill we now bring to the floor of the House. In 
furtherance of what our friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Barlow], has said, let me rise to his defense in 
opposition to this amendment by stating that the gentleman from 
Kentucky came to the subcommittee and to our full committee in a proper 
manner. The gentleman presented us with a proposed routing that made a 
great deal of common sense, but we did not just take it at that. 
Instead we asked the gentleman to clear it with Members from his 
neighboring districts. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Barlow] came 
back to the committee and advised us that Members from his neighboring 
congressional districts in Indiana and Tennessee had no objection. This 
was the prior agreement that I feel we have entered into in good faith 
in the early development stages of this legislation. Consequently, his 
provision was included in the ISTEA technical corrections bill that was 
passed by this House last year.
  Did we hear objection at that time? No, sir; not one word or 
objection was raised at that time. This bill passed the House of 
Representatives and is now pending over in the other body. Never was a 
word of objection heard. Suddenly as the subcommittee is preparing to 
come to the floor with this legislation, our colleague and friend, the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement], did appear stating that his 
State objected to this provision.
  Mr. Chairman, I would submit that his State does not necessarily 
believe that where the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Barlow] would have 
the corridor leaving Kentucky and entering Tennessee is at an 
inappropriate place. No, they simply do not want to be told where this 
corridor would enter their State even though it is at a place that they 
would pick themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, let me be clear that this corridor is one of the 21 
congressional designated high-priority corridors put into ISTEA by 
Members of Congress, not by the State highway officials, and as such we 
have the right to determine the routing of these corridors.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky did what was required of 
him, he obtained the necessary clearances. Frankly I think that is the 
agreement by which we should abide.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RAHALL. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, all along for over a year, a year and a 
half, maybe 2 years, I have heard objections, but a lot of those 
objections subsided simply because we are going to have a feasibility 
study and the feasibility study was going to speak for itself. I 
thought it was well understood on behalf of the leadership and the 
rank-and-file members of the Committee on Transportation and Public 
Works that what we were going to have all along was a technical 
corrections bill that would not be controversial, but the fact is that 
it is controversial now.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 64, 
noes 364, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 199]

                                AYES--64

     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Carr
     Clement
     Coble
     Combest
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Edwards (TX)
     Evans
     Gejdenson
     Gordon
     Grams
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Johnson (CT)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kreidler
     Lambert
     Leach
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Murphy
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Nussle
     Pallone
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Porter
     Quillen
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sundquist
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (WY)
     Walker
     Weldon

                               NOES--364

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Blackwell
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Ford (MI)
     Grandy
     Horn
     Johnston
     McMillan
     Ortiz
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington

                              {time}  1258

  Messrs. BOEHNER, COX, HOUGHTON, KOLBE, ROWLAND, KASICH, CHAPMAN, 
WILSON, and HALL of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. LLOYD changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings). Pursuant to the rule, it is 
now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 103-
528.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 78, after line 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 129. COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of methods 
     to reduce accidents on Federal-aid highways caused by drivers 
     falling asleep while operating a commercial motor vehicle 
     used to transport freight.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a).
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant] will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes, and a Member 
opposed to the amendment will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Rahall], the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, as a courtesy to Members, and with their 
cooperation, we will briefly discuss the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and then move to final passage, 
roll call vote, so I alert Members on the floor of the situation.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] 
for having yielded to me for that purpose.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of a colloquy, I yield 
to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
  Mr. BARCIA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant] very much, as well as the distinguished chairman, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  Mr. Chairman, I am working with the Michigan Department of 
Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and Secretary Pena 
of the Department of Transportation to meet the procedural requirements 
necessary to include certain roadways in the National Highway System. 
At the time that the Michigan Department of Transportation submitted 
its National Highway System plan to the FHWA, NAFTA and two major 
international crossing projects with Canada had not yet been approved 
by the United States Government. As this approval has since been 
received, the national significance of Michigan routes M-25 and M-53 
has been greatly enhanced. It is my understanding that at such a time 
as we are able to demonstrate the value of these roadways to the FHWA, 
and receive approval of their status as principal arterial routes, a 
prerequisite to inclusion on the National Highway System, I will have 
the committee's assistance in including the roadways in the National 
Highway System map. I also want to reiterate to the chairman that this 
request involves no cost the Federal Government.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Barcia] by saying that the subcommittee does have the 
communication from the Michigan Department of Transportation, and we 
will be working very closely with the gentleman as this process 
continues. We appreciate his leadership.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, according to the Department of 
Transportation, in 1992 there were approximately 34,000 accidents 
involving drivers, of these accidents, 600-plus were traced directly to 
truck drivers who had fallen asleep, resulting in 45 deaths on our 
highways. This is intolerable.
  My amendment simply calls for a study this year, and my goal will be 
to incentivize the highway trust fund for 100 percent moneys to develop 
more rest pull-off stops for truck drivers who are a long way before an 
exit and who may chance reaching an exit and that chance may result in 
the loss of life.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the subcommittee chairman, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant] for his amendment. We find it very worthy of support, and we 
thank him for his leadership on this most vital safety issue.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, the minority has reviewed the amendment. We 
feel it is meritorious, and we urge all the Members to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta].
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, we are in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio authorizing an FHWA study of methods to reduce 
accidents due to driver fatigue involving commercial motor vehicles 
transporting freight.
  I commend the gentleman for his commitment to improving safety on our 
Nation's highways. Safety is an issue that is on every driver's mind 
and I am anxious to work with gentleman on safety improvements.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee chairman 
for his support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment, and I wish to 
congratulate the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] for his 
perspicacity.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that I would have 
the support next year of my colleagues to incentivize and develop these 
truckstop pulloffs to help save lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Skaggs) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4385) to amend title 23, United States Code, to designate the National 
Highway System, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 
440, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted 
by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the final passage of the 
bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 412, 
noes 12, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 200]

                               AYES--412

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--12

     Allard
     Armey
     Boehner
     Crane
     Fawell
     Hancock
     Inglis
     Kyl
     Penny
     Sensenbrenner
     Solomon
     Stump

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Andrews (ME)
     Bachus (AL)
     Blackwell
     Grandy
     Hoke
     Horn
     McMillan
     Ortiz
     Washington

                              {time}  1325

  Mr. ROYCE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________