[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 125 (Monday, July 31, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8010-H8014]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMER- GENCY HIGHWAY RELIEF ACT

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2017), to authorize an increased Federal share of the costs 
of certain transportation projects in the District of Columbia for 
fiscal years 1995 and 1996, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:
                               H.R. 2017

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     Emergency Highway Relief Act''.

     SEC. 2. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY HIGHWAY RELIEF.

       (a) Temporary Waiver of Non-Federal Share.--Notwithstanding 
     any other law, during fiscal years 1995 and 1996, the Federal 
     share of the costs of an eligible project shall be a 
     percentage requested by the District of Columbia, but not to 
     exceed 100 percent of the costs of the project.
       (b) Eligible Projects.--In this section, the term 
     ``eligible project'' means a highway project in the District 
     of Columbia--
       (1) for which the United States--
       (A) is obligated to pay the Federal share of the costs of 
     the project under title 23, United States Code, on the date 
     of enactment of this Act; or
       (B) becomes obligated to pay the Federal share of the costs 
     of the project under title 23, United States Code, during the 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and 
     ending September 30, 1996;
       (2) which is--
       (A) for a route proposed for inclusion on or designated as 
     part of the National Highway System; or
       (B) of regional significance (as determined by the 
     Secretary of Transportation); and
       (3) with respect to which the District of Columbia 
     certifies that sufficient funds are not available to pay the 
     non-Federal share of the costs of the project.

     SEC. 3. DEDICATED HIGHWAY FUND AND REPAYMENT OF TEMPORARY 
                   WAIVER AMOUNTS.

       (a) Establishment of Fund.--Not later than December 31, 
     1995, the District of Columbia shall establish a dedicated 
     highway fund to be comprised, at a minimum, of amounts 
     equivalent to receipts from motor fuel taxes and, if 
     necessary, motor vehicle taxes and fees collected by the 
     District of Columbia to pay in accordance with this section 
     the cost-sharing requirements established under title 23, 
     United States Code, and to repay the United States for 
     increased Federal shares of eligible projects paid pursuant 
     to section 2(a). The fund shall be separate from the general 
     fund of the District of Columbia.
       (b) Payment of Non-Federal Share.--For fiscal year 1997 and 
     each fiscal year thereafter, amounts in the fund shall be 
     sufficient to pay, at a minimum, the cost-sharing 
     requirements established under title 23, United States Code, 
     for such fiscal year.

[[Page H 8011]]

       (c) Repayment Requirements.--
       (1) Fiscal year 1996.--By September 30, 1996, the District 
     of Columbia shall pay to the United States from amounts in 
     the fund established under subsection (a), with respect to 
     each project for which an increased Federal share is paid in 
     fiscal year 1995 pursuant to section 2(a), an amount equal to 
     50 percent of the difference between--
       (A) the amount of the costs of the project paid by the 
     United States in such fiscal year pursuant to section 2(a); 
     and
       (B) the amount of the costs of the project that would have 
     been paid by the United States but for section 2(a).
       (2) Fiscal year 1997.--By September 30, 1997, the District 
     of Columbia shall pay to the United States from amounts in 
     the fund established under subsection (a), with respect to 
     each project for which an increased Federal share is paid in 
     fiscal year 1995 pursuant to section 2(a) and with respect to 
     each project for which an increased Federal share is paid in 
     fiscal year 1996 pursuant to section 2(a), an amount equal to 
     50 percent of the difference between--
       (A) the amount of the costs of the project paid in such 
     fiscal year by the United States pursuant to section 2(a); 
     and
       (B) the amount of the costs of the project that would have 
     been paid by the United States but for section 2(a).
       (3) Fiscal year 1998.--By September 30, 1998, the District 
     of Columbia shall pay to the United States from amounts in 
     the fund established under subsection (a), with respect to 
     each project for which an increased Federal share is paid in 
     fiscal year 1996 pursuant to section 2(a), an amount equal to 
     50 percent of the difference between--
       (A) the amount of the costs of the project paid in such 
     fiscal year by the United States pursuant to section 2(a); 
     and
       (B) the amount of the costs of the project that would have 
     been paid by the United States but for section 2(a).
       (4) Deposit of repaid funds.--Repayments made under 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) with respect to a project shall 
     be--
       (A) deposited in the Highway Trust Fund established by 
     section 9503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
       (B) credited to the appropriate account of the District of 
     Columbia for the category of the project.
       (d) Enforcement.--If the District of Columbia does not meet 
     any requirement established by subsection (a), (b), or (c) 
     and applicable in a fiscal year, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall not approve any highway project in the 
     District of Columbia under title 23, United States Code, 
     until the requirement is met.
       (e) GAO Audit.--Not later than December 31, 1996, and each 
     December 31 thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall audit the financial condition and the operations 
     of the fund established under this section and shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the results of such audit and on the 
     financial condition and the results of the operation of the 
     fund during the preceding fiscal year and on the expected 
     condition and operations of the fund during the next 5 fiscal 
     years.

     SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Expeditious Processing and Execution of Contracts.--The 
     District of Columbia shall expeditiously process and execute 
     contracts to implement the Federal-aid highway program in the 
     District of Columbia.
       (b) Revolving Fund Account.--The District of Columbia shall 
     establish an independent revolving fund account for Federal-
     aid highway projects. The account shall be separate from the 
     capital account of the Department of Public Works of the 
     District of Columbia and shall be reserved for the prompt 
     payment of contractors completing highway projects in the 
     District of Columbia under title 23, United States Code.
       (c) Highway Project Expertise and Resources.--The District 
     of Columbia shall ensure that necessary expertise and 
     resources are available for planning, design, and 
     construction of Federal-aid highway projects in the District 
     of Columbia.
       (d) Programmatic Reforms.--The Secretary of Transportation, 
     in consultation with the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, may 
     require administrative and programmatic reforms by the 
     District of Columbia to ensure efficient management of the 
     Federal-aid highway program in the District of Columbia.
       (e) GAO Audit.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall review implementation of the requirements of 
     this section (including requirements imposed under subsection 
     (d)) and report to Congress on the results of such review not 
     later than July 1, 1996.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rahall] will each be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2017 provides for an increased share in certain 
Federal-aid highway projects in the District of Columbia for the fiscal 
years 1995 and 1996.
  This bill will also require the District to establish a dedicated 
highway fund for the first time to meet future local cost-share 
requirements, and repayments of the amounts weighed, and will ensure 
that improvements are made in the District's highway program. The 
District has been unable to provide local matching funds this year, as 
required under the Federal highway program; generally, 20 percent of 
the cost of the highway project.
  In the past, the District has financed its entire capital improvement 
program through the sale of general obligation bonds. Because the 
District's bond rating now stands at junk bond status, the District has 
not sold any bonds these years, so it does not have the approximately 
$20 million that is necessary to leverage over $80 million in Federal 
highway funds.
  Due to the lack of the local match no new construction projects are 
underway in the District today, and no new bids have been solicited in 
over 20 months.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that the Washington Post and 
others have editorialized very strongly in support of this legislation, 
arguing that highways are good for the District, that they create jobs, 
and they stimulate economic activity. I am thrilled that they noticed 
this about the District of Columbia. We have been saying this about the 
rest of America for many, many years, and what is good for the rest of 
America is good for the District of Columbia as well.
  This legislation, as amended by our committee, will allow an 
increased Federal share during 1995 and 1996 for certain highway 
projects. However, by December, 1995, the District, for the first time 
under our legislation, will have to establish a dedicated highway fund 
separate from the general fund. That is the good news.
  Gas taxes and other motor vehicle taxes collected by the District 
must be deposited in this fund in amounts sufficient to repay the 
amounts waived in 1995 and 1996 to meet their annual match for fiscal 
1997
 and every year thereafter.

  Currently, the gas taxes collected by the District are deposited in 
the general fund and mostly allocated to the metro account. The $35 
million in annual gas tax revenues will be more than adequate to meet 
cost-sharing requirements.
  This legislation also includes a strict 3-year repayment schedule. By 
September 30, 1996, the District must repay 50 percent of the amount 
waived in 1995, approximately $8 million; by September of 1997 another 
50 percent; and then in 1996 another. By 1998, the District must make 
its final repayment of approximately 50 percent of the amount waived in 
1996.
  If the District does not meet any of these requirements, then the 
Secretary of Transportation must withhold approval of highway projects 
in the District until the requirement is met.
  Finally, H.R. 2017 includes several other requirements to ensure that 
the District's highway program operates efficiently during the waiver 
period and in the future, with GAO reporting on the implementation of 
these requirements. The provisions in the legislation are significantly 
tougher than any other proposals which have been put forth to address 
this current crisis. However, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure believes that this temporary waiver is an extraordinary 
action, and these stringent requirements are justified.
  I was a little concerned, Mr. Speaker, to see a statement of 
administration policy today which says ``Similar waivers have been 
previously granted to 26 States.'' That is disingenuous at best. In the 
past, we have written into the law when there was substantial increased 
funding provided by the Federal Government that States would have time 
to make up the match, and we made this temporary waiver available to 
all 50 States. In no case were we faced with a situation where we had 
to give a waiver because a State was about to go into bankruptcy, as is 
the case with the District, so the District is unique.
  This is different. We did not do it 26 times in the past, as has been 
suggested by the administration, but nevertheless, nevertheless, we 
think there are some big pluses in this action we are taking today, and 
that is imposing stringent requirements on the District for the first 
time.

[[Page H 8012]]

  Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of the committee that the 
District receive further waivers in the future. For that reason, this 
legislation has been crafted to ensure that the improvements that are 
made in the current program as the dedicated highway fund will provide 
a stable revenue source for the District's match requirements in the 
years to come, long beyond the waiver period, so we should not be faced 
with this situation again in the district. We have worked very closely 
with the D.C. Control Board. I am told they support this legislation.
  Also, I would emphasize that the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, has been a leader in helping us craft 
this legislation, along with other representatives from the region, the 
gentlemen from Virginia, Mr. Davis and Mr. Wolf, the gentlewoman from 
Maryland, Mrs. Morella, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Moran, along 
with the help and cooperation of the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Dixon.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we bring this to the floor today with 
bipartisan support, support on the committee, support from the regional 
representatives, and we ask that this legislation be passed. It is 
unfortunate that the financial mismanagement of the District has forced 
this House to consider this bill today, but I think we have taken a bad 
situation and imposed tough requirements that will in the long run make 
much more discipline and stability in the District's highway program. 
That will be good not only for the residents of the District of 
Columbia, but for all Americans who visit our Nation's Capitol.
  For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to adopt H.R. 
2017.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure has explained the pending matter and 
I commend him for bringing the bill to the floor in such an expeditious 
manner.
  This is one of those rare instances where the administration, the 
Senate, and the House are joining together in concert to provide relief 
to the residents of the District of Columbia.
  In this regard, I think it important to point out that the issues 
raised by this legislation affect more than just the District, and more 
than the neighboring States of Maryland and Virginia which support it 
on the basis of maintaining a sound regional transportation system.
  This bill has national and international implications as well.
  For it is here, at the Nation's Capital, that many American and 
foreign visitors alike come to witness the seat of the greatest 
democracy on this Earth.
  As such, it is important that the gateway arteries into the city, 
those roads with the greatest significance, at least be in passable if 
not excellent condition.
  With respect to the pending matter, I would note that Congress on 
three other occasions granted temporary waivers from the local cost-
sharing requirements under the Federal Aid Highway Program.
  It is true that these waivers were generic in nature, with all States 
and territories eligible to participate.
  On the other hand, while the pending bill relates only to the 
District of Columbia, it contains far more conditions to obtaining the 
waiver than were required in the past.
  First, the bill provides for a very stringent repayment schedule, 
with payments made on an incremental basis.
  Second, the repayment must be made in cash, with no option for the 
repayment to be made in the form of a reduction in the amount of future 
Federal aid highway funds available to the District.
  Third, as a condition of obtaining the temporary waiver, the bill 
requires the District to establish a dedicated highway trust fund 
comprised of motor fuel tax receipts.
  And fourth, if the District fails to meet these obligations in any 
respect, the Secretary of Transportation would be prohibited from 
approving any highway project in the city.
  There are other conditions as well, conditions that any State would 
view as an intrusion on its rights, as a Federal mandate, as a 
regulatory burden.
  But, as well all know, the District is not a State, and the 
conditions imposed by this legislation are agreeable to the local 
Government, the Control Board, and to the duly elected Representative 
of the District of Columbia in this body, Delegate Eleanor Holmes 
Norton.
  With that stated, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the pending 
measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would emphasize to the House that the Speaker, the 
gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, has certainly pushed hard. He is 
really the one who came to our committee and said we should consider 
this legislation, so the Speaker certainly deserves great credit for 
his interest in seeing to it that we be helpful to the District on this 
particular issue.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, anyone who drives a car in Washington, DC, 
knows that this city needs highway money. Practically every street and 
highway in this town has potholes or broken pavement. Many of the 
bridges are in dire need of repair or replacement. It seems like every 
other bridge in the District has at least one heavy metal plate stuck 
in the pavement to cover a hole in the bridge. The road infrastructure 
in the District is falling apart. The $82 million in Federal highway 
trust fund money is absolutely vital if the District is to reverse this 
trend.
  But, as we are well aware, a decaying transportation infrastructure 
is not a unique problem in Washington, DC. Many other cities face 
similar problems. So why should this city receive a total waiver of 
fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 matching funds requirements to 
get their highway money as the administration has asked for?
  The District is in this position, because of years of fiscal 
mismanagement. The city could not sell bonds to raise the capital 
necessary to meet the 20-percent
 match requirement, because it's bond rating is so poor. I do not think 
we want to reward the District's fiscal mismanagement by waiving the 
share requirement for 2 years. This would be unprecedented in the 39-
year history of the Federal highway program and is simply the wrong 
direction to go in. This legislation does not grant a complete waiver 
and as a result, does not set such a precedent.

  However, I support H.R. 2017, the District of Columbia Emergency 
Highway Relief Act, sponsored by Delegate Norton and which I have 
cosponsored with Members from the region. I strongly support the 
Transportation Committee's mark up of H.R. 2017 which is being 
considered on the floor today. The District is in a budget crunch--one 
of its own making. But, we have acknowledged the mismanagement of the 
past that brought the District to this position, and we have put in 
place a Control Board to bring financial responsibility to the city's 
budget. That Board is in operation and has already taken aggressive 
steps to get control of this situation. There will be budgetary 
responsibility in the future.
  With this bill, we are trying to respond to the immediate problem--
the District will lose its Federal highway funding by August 1, if we 
do not act. This waiver is part of the solution we are trying to reach 
in the District. We are not penalizing the city for past sins by 
denying desperately needed highway funds. We are deferring payment of 
the matching share recognizing the city's immediate cash crisis and 
structuring a repayment program. This is a disciplined, responsible 
approach. I would note also that this is not unprecedented, on three 
occasions in 1975, 1982, and 1991 the States were given an opportunity 
to defer payment of their matching share and many States took advantage 
of that Federal offer. Admittedly, this is a different situation, the 
District is requesting this deferral, but after all, the District 
doesn't have a State to turn to like Fairfax County might under similar 
circumstances. The District of Columbia, as our national city, is 
unique and in many ways the Federal Government must act as the State 
for the city.
  I have looked at the final bill reported from the Transportation 
Committee, and I heartily applaud their efforts. They have imposed 
financial restrictions on the District to ensure that this waiver does 
not become a permanent IOU to the Federal Government. Working in 
consultation with the District of Columbia Control Board, they have 
come up with restrictions that the city can live with.
  Finally, I want to point out that this is a regional and a national 
problem. Hundreds of thousands of people in this region drive through 
the District daily and millions of tourists travel to Washington. They 
have a right to visit the Nation's Capital without having their cars 
swallowed by a pothole, because the District Government was not 
managing its budget properly in the past. We are now moving toward a 
solution to the District's problems, the waiver proposal in this bill 
is one more step 

[[Page H 8013]]
down that road, and I urge the committee to support it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Surface Transportation of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, because of the severe financial crisis of the District 
of Columbia and its inability to provide a 20-percent local match 
share, no Federal-aid highway funds have been obligated in the District 
for all of 1995. The highway program is at a virtual standstill, 
highway contractors are being forced to lay off workers, and there are 
concerns regarding the conditions of several of the major routes 
traveled each day by 300,000 commuters and visitors to the Nation's 
Capital.
  H.R. 2017 would waive for 2 years the District's local cost share 
necessary to access roughly $82 million in Federal highway funds in 
1995 and a similar amount next year. However, because of the serious 
concerns on the part of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
regarding this unprecedented waiver, other very substantial 
requirements and safeguards have been included in H.R. 2017.
  The annual gas taxes and other vehicle use taxes collected by the 
District each year are currently earmarked for the Metro account of the 
general fund.
  H.R. 2017 will require that the District establish a dedicated 
highway fund by the end of this year which must maintain, at a minimum, 
amounts necessary to meet the District's cost-sharing requirements 
beginning in fiscal year 1997. The fund must also have amounts 
necessary to meet the strict repayment schedule over fiscal years 1996 
through 1998 of the approximately $35 million of local match funds that 
are temporarily waived under this legislation. If any deadlines are not 
met, the Secretary of Transportation will withhold any further project 
approvals until the requirement is met by the District. By establishing 
this dedicated fund, the District will no longer rely on the bond 
market to secure the funds for its local share as has been its practice 
in the past. Rather, a stable and more secure source of the match, as 
well as repayment funds, will be in place.
  Finally, section 4 of H.R. 2017 imposes additional requirements on 
the District which should lead to improvements in the District's 
highway program both during the 2-year waiver period and in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I do have concerns about moving forward with legislation 
which will waive, however temporarily, cost sharing requirements for 
one particular State due to its financial condition. The cost sharing 
principle is basic to the Federal Aid Highway Program and has been one 
of the reasons for its success over the past 40 years. We do not grant 
this waiver lightly, nor do we intend that this be an invitation to 
other States to seek waivers in the future.
  The Transportation Committee has worked closely and cooperatively 
with the various parties which have an interest in this legislation. 
These include Congresswoman Norton and other Members representing the 
capital region, the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, the 
recently created D.C. Financial Authority, and the District itself. The 
Speaker of the House also has an interest in this legislation. While I 
am disappointed that the financial mismanagement of the District has 
forced us to consider this bill today, passage of H.R. 2017 will allow 
critical highway projects to move forward in the District immediately, 
and will also result in a better, more stable highway program in the 
future.
  I urge the House to approve H.R. 2017.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] has 
justifiably come to the Speaker of this body and asked for his support 
of this legislation.
  I would also like to take one quick moment to commend the legislation 
led by the chairman of the Department of Transportation, Federica Pena, 
and most importantly Rodney Slater who has been most helpful on this 
legislation. Mr. Slater testified before our subcommittee in support of 
the bill. We have a statement of administration policy in support of 
this legislation, and so I commend them as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Mineta], the distinguished ranking minority member.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues have raised two 
questions about today's legislation. First, will the District pay the 
money back and second, will we be here a few years from now facing a 
similar situation?
  I want to assure the Members that this bill was crafted specifically 
to address these two concerns. That's why it contains numerous 
accountability provisions to ensure that the District will not only 
promptly repay, in full, its local share, but also will dedicate 
stable, reliable funding for the future transportation program.
  Unlike previous, broad-based waivers, such as the one offered to all 
States in 1991, this bill requires the District to repay in cash, 
beginning next year.
  The bill also requires the District to establish a dedicated highway 
account, funded by motor fuel taxes and vehicles fees, to ensure that 
funds are available for the cash loan repayment and for future local 
shares. No longer will the District to able to rely solely on general 
obligation bonds to fund its local share.
  In addition, the District's new financial control board has assured 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that the Board will 
closely monitor District compliance with the terms of today's bill.
  In closing, let me just remind my colleagues why we have Federal 
involvement in highway construction. Local road conditions have 
regional and national effects. The District's infrastructure affects 
not just District residents, but also thousands of daily commuters and 
millions of tourists.
  This bill limits the use of the higher Federal share financing to 
projects of regional significance or those on National Highway System 
routes. The Federal Highway Administration has announced that it will 
closely monitor these projects, even locating some of its staff in the 
District's Department of Public Works, to ensure that Federal dollars 
are used wisely on only the most critical regional needs.
  I think particular credit for pulling together this solution should 
go to Eleanor Holmes Norton, to Chairman Shuster, and to Speaker 
Gingrich, all of whom have persevered in the face of great obstacles, 
because they know how important it is to solve this problem, rather 
than to ignore it.
  The District's infrastructure is too important to both the region and 
the nation to allow it to deteriorate further. So, I urge my colleagues 
to recognize the importance of this legislation and to vote for the 
bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], 
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, for his work in finding an appropriate way to release 
funds for the resumption of street repair work in the District at a 
time when its financial condition does not allow the city to fund its 
matching share. My deep gratitude goes as well to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface 
Transportation, who quickly prepared a hearing and brought forward the 
information that was necessary to arrive at a viable bill. The work, 
advice, and counsel of the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the 
full committee ranking member; and the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Rahall], the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on 
Surface Transportation, were indispensable to the bill, and they have 
my deep appreciation as well.
  Mr. Speaker, in the Senate I am grateful to Senator John Warner who 
has already led that body to the passage of a bill similar to the one 
before the House today, and to Transportation Secretary Federico Pena 
and highway administrator Rodney Slater who have rendered extraordinary 
assistance. May I say also that I do not believe this bill would be on 
the Floor today without the indispensable assistance of Speaker Newt 
Gingrich.

[[Page H 8014]]

  Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps not surprising that a city close to 
insolvency would have difficulty making its matching share to obtain 
Federal funds. At the same time, my colleagues know that this body has 
taken definitive action to permanently repair the malfunction that led 
to the District's financial problems. In April, you approved the 
establishment of the financial responsibility and management assistance 
authority, whose work has only recently begun.
  What H.R. 2017 does in large part is not only to allow the highway 
funds that have already been set aside to be used, but the bill of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania also does what the financial authority 
would have done had it not been just established to correct the 
problems and prevent them from arising in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, this waiver does not differ substantially from waivers 
previously granted to 39 States, except that it poses more stringent 
conditions on the District than on those States. Like those States, 
full repayment must be made. Unlike those States, the District must 
make a cash repayment of its waived funds, while waivers for other 
jurisdictions have allowed repayment from future highway fund 
apportionments. Unlike those States, the District is required to 
establish and maintain a separate dedicated revolving fund account to 
maintain its matching share. The GAO, the Highway Administration, and 
the D.C. Financial Authority, are given specific responsibilities to 
see that all the requirements of this bill are carried out.
  Mr. Speaker, the other difference from waivers routinely granted in 
other States is that the District's waivers are granted individually by 
the bill at the end of the fiscal year rather than as part of a group 
of States at the time of the reauthorization of a highway bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the individual waiver to the District is more than 
justified by three circumstances. First, this city is totally dependent 
on the Congress in time of emergency because under the Constitution, 
the District of Columbia is not a jurisdiction of any
 State, but is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress. Other 
large cities and localities experiencing difficult times would turn on 
their States to develop a plan like that outlined in the Chairman's 
bill before you.

  Second, the financial condition of the District of Columbia is due in 
large part to the fact that it must fund State, county and municipal 
functions that no large city could meet on its own today. These 
unfunded mandates include programs that cities do not fund at all, 
including medicaid and prisons. The many unfunded Federal mandates 
financed solely by District of Columbia residents, such as Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children, are funded entirely by businesses and 
residents of a city with less than 600,000 people, with a rapidly 
diminishing tax-paying population.
  Mr. Speaker, it is easy enough to blame the District for its 
predicament, but fairness requires that the Congress look at the entire 
picture and ask yourselves whether any large city in the United States 
today could have carried this heavy State, county and municipal load 
alone without going under.
  Mr. Speaker, finally, this waiver is surely warranted because the 
District of Columbia is our Nation's capital. Whenever the District has 
sought the same democratic rights as those enjoyed by citizens of the 
50 States and the four territories, our citizens have been told that we 
cannot have full democracy because we live in the Nation's capital. 
This justification does not meet the high standards of democracy we 
have set for ourselves and have insisted upon throughout the world. 
Until the District of Columbia status is satisfactorily resolved, 
however, Congress must assume some of the responsibility that attaches 
to such a weighty denial of democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, this is particularly the case for roads. The streets 
involved are mostly gateway streets traveled far more by 20 million 
tourists and commuters than by District residents. To miss another 
construction season is to condemn your constituents as well as mine to 
unsafe and uncomfortable road conditions. It would be unseemly at best 
for Congress to force the District to forego 2 years of already 
apportioned general highway funds while the Congress continue its work 
in a city collapsing around it.
  Mr. Speaker, to its credit, the full committee and subcommittee have 
chosen a responsible course. The Chairman's version is a risk-free bill 
for the Congress because repayment is guaranteed, and because the bill 
contains structural changes to keep the situation from arising gain.
  Mr. Speaker, may I once again say that I appreciate the tremendous 
help we have received on this matter from Speaker Gingrich, minority 
leader Gephardt, Chairman Shuster, Chairman Petri, ranking member 
Mineta, ranking member Rahall, the Regional Delegation and the Clinton 
administration. I ask for approval of the bill.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2017, the District 
of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act. This legislation is of vital 
importance to our Nation's capital and the Washington metropolitan area 
and I urge Congress to approve this legislation as quickly as possible.
  For the past 1\1/2\ years, the District of Columbia has not moved 
forward with critically important highway projects. As a result of the 
D.C. financial crisis, the District of Columbia has been unable to fund 
the matching share required before it may obligate Federal highway 
funds. The District of Columbia has been unable to plan and implement 
necessary highway projects. Now, roads and bridges in and around the 
District of Columbia are literally falling apart. Some roads are barely 
passable, and without necessary repairs, may need to be closed off to 
traffic.
  Our Nation's capital must have a basic network of transportation 
which includes safe roads. Transportation is about getting to work, the 
grocery store, church, and recreational activities. Safe roadways are 
critical for ambulances, fire and rescue vehicles, and police. Finally, 
roadways provide access to the Nation's capital, allowing thousands of 
Federal employees to get to work, and serving thousands more tourists 
who visit annually.
  H.R. 2017 offers a reasonable and necessary solution to the District 
of Columbia dire financial situation. This legislation will grant the 
District of Columbia additional time in which to pay its matching share 
of the highway funds. The District of Columbia would be permitted to 
use its portion of Federal highway funds now rather than lose these 
funds forever. I want to underscore an essential aspect of this 
legislation: The bill does not provide a forgiveness of the matching 
fund requirement. The District of Columbia will still be required to 
pay the requisite matching portion. H.R. 2017 merely allows the 
District of Columbia additional time in which to make this payment 
while allowing critical road work to go forward.
  In addition, as amended by the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, H.R. 2017 includes important provisions aimed at improving 
highway program oversight in the District of Columbia by requiring it 
to institute programmatic reforms and establish a dedicated highway 
fund. Finally, the District of Columbia is subject to strict 
enforcement procedures if the repayment requirements of this 
legislation are not met.
  The District of Columbia simply does not have the money necessary to 
pay its portion of the highway funds at this time. Additional oversight 
and control over the D.C. financial affairs has been implemented and I 
am hopeful that the control board can make needed improvement in the 
D.C. financial position. However, since the District of Columbia cannot 
pay its portion of the highway funds now, it will lose $82 million in 
Federal highway funds unless legislation delaying payment of the 
District of Columbia portion is enacted.
  Legislation is needed to allow for needed repairs and upgrades to the 
most heavily traveled roads leading to and within the District of 
Columbia. Timely enactment of this legislation will allow the District 
of Columbia to begin road work right away, during the summer 
construction period. I urge passage of H.R. 2017.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2017, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________