[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 147 (Wednesday, September 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9257-H9309]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


            NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 224 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 224

       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. 2274) 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. Points of order against consideration of the bill for 
     failure to comply with section 302(f) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment recommended by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure now printed in the bill, it shall be in order 
     to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 2349. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     by title rather than by section. The first two sections and 
     each title shall be considered as read. Points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute for 
     failure to comply with clause 1(q)(10) of rule X, clause 5(a) 
     of rule XXI, or section 302(f) of the congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 are waived. Before consideration of any other 
     amendment it shall be in order to consider the amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, if offered by Representative Shuster of 
     Pennsylvania or his designee. That amendment shall be 
     considered as read, may amend portions of the bill not yet 
     read for amendment, shall be debatable for ten minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, 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. All points of order against 
     that amendment are waived. After disposition of that 
     amendment, the provisions of the bill as then perfected shall 
     be considered as original text. During further consideration 
     of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of 
     the whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. 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 amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order as original text. 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.

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this 

[[Page H 9258]]
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 224 is an open rule 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 2274, the National Highway 
System Designation Act of 1995. The rule provides 1 hour of general 
debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute as 
an original bill for the purpose of amendment consisting of the text of 
H.R. 2349. The substitute shall be considered by title rather than by 
section, and the first two sections and each title shall be considered 
as read.
  The rule waives section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, prohibiting consideration of legislation providing new budget 
authority in excess of a committee's allocation, against consideration 
of the bill and against the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  Also, the rule waives clause 5(a) of rule XXI, prohibiting 
appropriations in a legislative bill, and clause 1(q)(10) of rule X, 
prohibiting inclusion in a general roads bill of provisions addressing 
specific roads, against the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The rule further provides for the consideration of the manager's 
amendment printed in the Rules Committee report. The amendment is 
considered as read, and is debatable for 10 minutes equally divided 
between the proponent and an opponent. All points of order against the 
amendment are waived. If adopted, the amendment is considered as part 
of the base text for the purpose of further amendment.
  The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to 
Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, as a freshman Member of Congress back in 1963, I proudly 
served on the Public Works Committee. I developed a high respect for 
the difficult and important work done by the committee. They did a 
great job back then, and that hasn't changed. Chairman Bud Shuster and 
the other members of the committee have done an outstanding job in 
putting together this important bill. As always, the committee worked 
with a bipartisan spirit and I strongly support this legislation.
  The establishment of the National Highway System is essential to 
ensure the necessary infrastructure to carry people and goods safely 
and efficiently across the country will into the 21st century.
  I understand that an agreement was made to allow a vote on taking the 
trust funds off budget at a later time. I personally support taking the 
various transportation trust funds off budget, but I don't want to see 
this legislation stalled because of those provisions, and I look 
forward to voting on this issue sometime in the near future.
  There are some concerns over certain provisions of this bill, such as 
repealing the maximum speed limit and helmet penalties. This open rule 
will allow all Members to fully participate in the amendment process, 
and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert extraneous materials into the Record as 
follows:

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                           [As of September 19, 1995]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 47                 74
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 15                 23
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  2                  3
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 64                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                           [As of September 19, 1995]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/13/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: voice vote (2/22/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/2/95)
 95).                                                              Protection Act.                              
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95)               
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)  Debate..............  H.R. 956............  Product Liability Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95)      
H. Res. 115 (3/14/    MO..................  H.R. 1159...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
 95).                                                              Approps..                  95)               
H. Res. 116 (3/15/    MC..................  H.J. Res. 73........  Term Limits Const. Amdt..  A: voice vote (3/28/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 117 (3/16/    Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
 95).                                                              Act of 1995.               95)               
H. Res. 119 (3/21/    MC..................  ....................  .........................  A: 217-211 (3/22/  
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1271...........  Family Privacy Protection  A: 423-1 (4/4/95)  
                                                                   Act.                                         
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 660............  Older Persons Housing Act  A: voice vote (4/6/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1215...........  Contract With America Tax  A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
                                                                   Relief Act of 1995.                          
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)  MC..................  H.R. 483............  Medicare Select Expansion   A: 253-172 (4/6/  
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 655............  Hydrogen Future Act of     A: voice vote (5/2/
                                                                   1995.                      95)               
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1361...........  Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996  A: voice vote (5/9/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)  O...................  H.R. 961............  Clean Water Amendments...  A: 414-4 (5/10/95) 
H. Res. 144 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 535............  Fish Hatchery--Arkansas..  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 145 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 584............  Fish Hatchery--Iowa......  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 146 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 614............  Fish Hatchery--Minnesota.  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 149 (5/16/    MC..................  H. Con. Res. 67.....  Budget Resolution FY 1996  PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
 95).                                                                                         168 (5/17/95)     

[[Page H 9259]]
                                                                                                                
H. Res. 155 (5/22/    MO..................  H.R. 1561...........  American Overseas          A: 233-176 (5/23/  
 95).                                                              Interests Act.             95)               
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1530...........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY      PQ: 225-191 A: 233-
                                                                   1996.                      183 (6/13/95)     
H. Res. 167 (6/15/    O...................  H.R. 1817...........  MilCon Appropriations FY   PQ: 223-180 A: 245-
 95).                                                              1996.                      155 (6/16/95)     
H. Res. 169 (6/19/    MC..................  H.R. 1854...........  Leg. Branch Approps. FY    PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
 95).                                                              1996.                      191 (6/20/95)     
H. Res. 170 (6/20/    O...................  H.R. 1868...........  For. Ops. Approps. FY      PQ: 221-178 A: 217-
 95).                                                              1996.                      175 (6/22/95)     
H. Res. 171 (6/22/    O...................  H.R. 1905...........  Energy & Water Approps.    A: voice vote (7/12/
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95)               
H. Res. 173 (6/27/    C...................  H.J. Res. 79........  Flag Constitutional        PQ: 258-170 A: 271-
 95).                                                              Amendment.                 152 (6/28/95)     
H. Res. 176 (6/28/    MC..................  H.R. 1944...........  Emer. Supp. Approps......  PQ: 236-194 A: 234-
 95).                                                                                         192 (6/29/95)     
H. Res. 185 (7/11/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 235-193 D: 192-
 95).                                                                                         238 (7/12/95)     
H. Res. 187 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 230-194 A: 229-
 95).                                                              #2.                        195 (7/13/95)     
H. Res. 188 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1976...........  Agriculture Approps. FY    PQ: 242-185 A:     
 95).                                                              1996.                      voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 190 (7/17/    O...................  H.R. 2020...........  Treasury/Postal Approps.   PQ: 232-192 A:     
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 193 (7/19/    C...................  H.J. Res. 96........  Disapproval of MFN to      A: voice vote (7/20/
 95).                                                              China.                     95)               
H. Res. 194 (7/19/    O...................  H.R. 2002...........  Transportation Approps.    PQ: 217-202 (7/21/ 
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95)               
H. Res. 197 (7/21/    O...................  H.R. 70.............  Exports of Alaskan Crude   A: voice vote (7/24/
 95).                                                              Oil.                       95)               
H. Res. 198 (7/21/    O...................  H.R. 2076...........  Commerce, State Approps.   A: voice vote (7/25/
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95)               
H. Res. 201 (7/25/    O...................  H.R. 2099...........  VA/HUD Approps. FY 1996..  A: 230-189 (7/25/  
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 204 (7/28/    MC..................  S. 21...............  Terminating U.S. Arms      A: voice vote (8/1/
 95).                                                              Embargo on Bosnia.         95)               
H. Res. 205 (7/28/    O...................  H.R. 2126...........  Defense Approps. FY 1996.  A: 409-1 (7/31/95) 
 95).                                                                                                           
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1555...........  Communications Act of      A: 255-156 (8/2/95)
                                                                   1995.                                        
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 2127...........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY     A: 323-104 (8/2/95)
                                                                   1996.                                        
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)  O...................  H.R. 1594...........  Economically Targeted      A: voice vote (9/12/
                                                                   Investments.               95)               
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1655...........  Intelligence               A: voice vote (9/12/
                                                                   Authorization FY 1996.     95)               
H. Res. 218 (9/12/    O...................  H.R. 1162...........  Deficit Reduction Lockbox  A: voice vote (9/13/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 219 (9/12/    O...................  H.R. 1670...........  Federal Acquisition        A: 414-0 (9/13/95) 
 95).                                                              Reform Act.                                  
H. Res. 222 (9/18/    O...................  H.R. 1617...........  CAREERS Act..............  A: 388-2 (9/19/95) 
 95).                                                                                                           
H. Res. 224 (9/19/    O...................  H.R. 2274...........  Natl. Highway System.....  ...................
 95).                                                                                                           
H. Res. 225 (9/19/    MC..................  H.R. 927............  Cuban Liberty & Dem.       ...................
 95).                                                              Solidarity.                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               


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

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 224 and in support 
of H.R. 2274. This is urgent legislation and I urge its quick passage 
in order to protect the funds for the Nation's highway system. The 
Transportation Committee is to be commended for bringing forward a 
bipartisan bill which is truly in the Nation's interest. While there 
are several issues which are controversial, most notably the repeal of 
the Federal speed limit and the motorcycle helmet requirement, this 
open rule will allow the House to fully debate these and other issues.
  However, in spite of my support for this rule, it is my intention to 
call for a no vote on the previous question for this resolution. Mr. 
Speaker, tomorrow the Committee on Ways and Means is holding its only 
day of hearings on proposals to cut Medicare by $270 billion. In spite 
of the fact that my Democratic colleagues on Ways and Means have 
objected in the strongest possible terms to giving these enormous 
changes such short shift, the Republican majority has not seen fit to 
give the public the opportunity to fully digest and comment on their 
proposal. And, I might add, no one has actually seen any text and 
clairvoyance is required to comment on the specifics of the Republican 
proposal. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I will call for a no vote on 
the previous question in order to allow an amendment to the rule to 
permit the consideration of House Resolution 221, a resolution 
sponsored by 201 Members calling for additional hearings on Medicare 
legislation.
  As I stated at the outset, I support the open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 2274. Mr. Speaker, I especially want to thank the 
Transportation Committee for their designation of Interstate 35 as a 
congressional high priority highway. This road, which runs through the 
middle of my congressional district, stretches from Laredo, TX at the 
Mexican border, to Duluth, MN, at the Canadian border. It also connects 
by a trunk road with the transportation facilities in Kansas City, MO. 
I-35 is a vital transportation link between the three NAFTA partner-
nations and has rightfully been called a river of trade.
  Because of the lack of adequate rail systems in Mexico, highways are 
truly a vital link for that Nation's trade to the north. In fact, 
approximately 74 percent of Mexico's trade with the United States 
travels on our highways and more than half of that amount crosses the 
border at Laredo.
  Interstate 35 benefits every State and every community along its 
1,500 mile route because trade is truly a two-way street. United States 
and Mexican officials are predicting a doubling of trade between now 
and the year 2000 and another doubling by 2010. Texas commerce with 
Mexico accounted for $20.3 billion in exports in 1992, and Oklahoma's 
exports to Mexico in 1993 totaled $158 million up 226 percent from 1989 
levels. Running through the Nation's midsection, I-35 links the entire 
United States with Canadian and Mexican markets through rail, air and 
truck links.
  It is the hope of the multistate I-35 Corridor Coalition that the 
designation of I-35 as a high priority corridor is just a first step 
toward the eventual designation of this vital transportation link as 
the International NAFTA Superhighway. With increased trade will come 
increased traffic and a need for enhanced safety mechanisms as well as 
construction and maintenance of the roadway. I-35 is currently the only 
fully constructed north-south Interstate link between Mexico and Canada 
and its high priority designation will enhance efforts to improve the 
road to accommodate the increase in commercial traffic that has begun 
and promises only to grow.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take the opportunity to salute my 
friend and colleague, Norm Mineta. His service to the Congress and 
particularly to the transportation needs of this great Nation has been 
a model of dedication and high-mindedness. He has been both a champion 
of noble causes and a workhorse in the day-to-day business of the 
House. Our country and this Congress are far better because of him and 
he will be missed. I salute you Norm and wish you well as you take 
leave of us.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The Chair joins in recognition 
of the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Pryce], a very valuable member of the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this open rule for H.R. 
2274, the National Highway Designation System Act of 1995. As a member 
of the Committee on Rules, I am very pleased we are bringing to the 
floor today yet another open rule, one which will permit the House to 
have a thorough and complete debate on this very important, timely 
legislation. This resolution honors our commitment to an open amendment 
process, and by including a preprinting option, the committee continues 
to encourage Members to make their amendments available for their 
colleagues to review before debate begins on the House floor.
  While the focus of this legislation is to designate the National 
Highway System, it also takes a much-needed step to provide immediate 
relief from a number of costly Federal mandates or requirements put in 
place by ISTEA in 1991. I would like to express my thanks to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, 

[[Page H 9260]]
Chairman Shuster, and to other members of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, especially my colleague from 
Mississippi, Mr. Parker, for a thoughtful reconsideration of and for 
working to include in this bill a provision to repeal the so-called 
crumb rubber mandate.
  Well intended, and enacted as an incentive to encourage the use of 
recycled paving material, the crumb rubber mandate also carried with it 
a heavy penalty for noncompliance. But the universal application of 
crumb rubber has, at its best, met with mixed results. For example, 
what works in warmer climates does not necessarily work in cold. 
Therefore, many State transportation departments, including the Ohio 
Department of Transportation, have voiced their strong concerns about 
this example of overreach by the Federal Government.
  In Ohio alone, this mandate costs $50 million each year, money that 
could be used to repave nearly 700 miles of highways, or rehabilitate 
137 bridges. Repealing this mandate simply reaffirms that States indeed 
know how best to build highways in their locales, and it is a very 
positive step toward allowing the States more freedom and flexibility 
to make important highway construction decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has 
reported a very responsible bill, which must be completed before the 
end of the month in order for valuable highway funds to continue 
flowing to the States. The rule before us will set the stage for this 
kind of deliberation that is needed in this body, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this fair and open rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the House is embarking on I think a very 
bad precedent and a very dangerous course. Many of my colleagues wonder 
why the motion to adjourn today? The answer is very simple: First of 
all, the rights of the Members of the institution are being severely 
impinged upon. The House is being called upon in just a few days to 
consider legislation on which there have been very little in the way of 
hearings; indeed, in our committee, no hearings on either the Medicare 
or Medicaid proposals, and in the Committee on Ways and Means, a 
similar situation. Members are not going to know what the questions are 
associated with regard to the legislation.
  The bill, which was submitted to our committee and which is being 
written in our committee as we speak here at this moment, was submitted 
to the Congress Monday night; that is, September 18, at 9 p.m. The 
markup on this in our committee commences today. This is on proposal 
which was already changed since it was sent up. The staff on the 
Committee on Commerce spent all night Monday night and all night last 
night on the minority side looking to try to understand what is in this 
piece of legislation.
  A similar situation impends with regard to the Medicare proposal. 
These proposals have been part of the Republican Contract on America 
since last summer when my Republican colleagues marched to the front of 
the Capitol to join in a big signing ceremony. They knew what was going 
to be in it, but they have not shared it with the American people.
  Now, the question is, why is this great haste before us? Why are we 
being compelled to consider legislation which has not yet been made 
available to the Congress, on which no American citizen has either 
understanding or appreciation of all of the enormous subtleties?
  These are pieces of legislation which will run to scores, if not 
hundreds, of pages. These are pieces of legislation which are going to 
affect every citizen in this country, which are going to have 
significant impact on the poor, the young, the old. Indeed, they are 
going to lend credit to the claims that the Republicans are giving new 
meaning to the words ``women and children first,'' and that it is the 
women and children and the old and the poor and the weak who are going 
to be most afflicted by these changes.
  Now, I would say on the basis of some 40 years service in this body, 
that the best legislation is bipartisan legislation when it can be 
gotten. The second best legislation is legislation which is crafted and 
contrived in an open fashion, in which everyone here has an opportunity 
to ask questions and to understand fully all of the issues that are 
involved and to get the best answers we can, so that we craft the best 
public policy.
  Here we have a situation with no hearings on either Medicare or 
Medicaid. There are not cost estimates from the Congressional Budget 
Office. There has been no opportunity for interested persons to be 
heard. And this is true with regard to either Medicare or Medicaid.
  The bill on which this rule would be offered has had 6 days of 
hearings and markup. The bill was started February 8. Discussion has 
been going on for months. The early drafts were made available to the 
Congress. There has been fair discussion. And whether you are for or 
against the bill that this rule would make in order, you cannot say 
that the process has not been at least basically fair and open.
  No such claim can be made with regard to Medicare and Medicaid. The 
matter has been conducted in such a haphazard, sloppy and concealed 
way, that no person can really tell you what is in the bill or what the 
impact of it is going to be.
  We sought responses from Governors of a number of States, 
interestingly enough, all but one Republicans, and we got an answer 
from no one except from the one Democratic Governor, in which on 
Medicaid it was said the result would be devastation of the Medicaid 
program for the State of Florida.
  These are not issues which are small. Even President Reagan talked 
about the safety net. And in his discussion of the safety net, he said 
it is going to take care of those who are most poor, least able to 
address change, and least able to sustain hurt, and those who have the 
least resources with which to address the costs and the stresses of 
life, particularly from the standpoint of health and things of that 
kind.
  This legislation, with regard to Medicaid, which is not being marked 
up in our committee, is not a safety net anymore. It is simply a big 
concrete floor on which the poorest and the least well-to-do in our 
country are going to come smash. No hearings, no opportunity to be 
heard, and, indeed, a terrible result.
  Reject this rule. Let us have an open rule, so that we can bring this 
legislation to the floor after an appropriate period of hearing and 
after the rule has been amended to enable this side to get full 
hearings on the matter.
                              {time}  1200

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thought we were discussing the highway bill and not Medicare, and I 
think in the future, we should confine our remarks to the rule before 
us. I dislike making a point of order, and I will not do it at this 
time, but I would hope that we confine our remarks to the bill before 
us.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster], the distinguished chairman of the committee.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I thank the gentlewoman for letting me go essentially out of 
order so we can get all the things done we need to do.
  Mr. Speaker, this is historic and urgent legislation, and I commend 
the Committee on Rules and the leadership for bringing this open rule 
to the floor.
  We must pass this legislation quickly so that we free up nearly $6 
billion of funds, critical highway funds that will go to our States.
  As a show of good faith and a strong commitment to getting this bill 
out quickly, I have agreed to drop two important provisions. First, I 
have agreed to drop the provision in the bill which passed 
overwhelmingly in the committee, indeed, I believe unanimously, to take 
the transportation trust funds out of the general fund budget. I did 
this because I received a commitment from the leadership that we will, 
indeed, have a vote on this issue later this year after the 
appropriations and the reconciliation process.
  It is important to emphasize that there are 222 Members of this body 
who are cosponsors of the legislation to remove the transportation 
trust funds off 

[[Page H 9261]]
budget, a majority; many others have committed to vote for it who are 
not cosponsors. Indeed, a majority of the Republicans of the House are 
cosponsors; nearly a majority of the Democrats of the house are 
cosponsors; a majority of the Republican freshman class are cosponsors. 
That issue has strong bipartisan support. But I have agreed to drop it 
in the interests of moving the national highway system bill quickly.
  Secondly, I have agreed to drop the trigger provision which will move 
up the reauthorization of ISTEA from 1997 to 1996. I still believe 
there are solid policy reasons for doing this. However, because we want 
to bring bipartisan legislation to the floor and some of my Democratic 
colleagues on the committee have problems with this, again, in the 
interests of bipartisanship and good faith, I have agreed to drop this 
provision in this legislation. We may well consider it in another 
context later this year, but we need to pass the national highway 
system bill quickly. Also, dropping these two important provisions, 
also, is being done with an eye toward demonstrating to the other body 
we want to cooperate with them. They have expressed concerns about 
these two provisions as well in this particular piece of legislation. 
So we have dropped those controversial provisions so that we can move 
quickly and get the national highway system final approval and get the 
money released to the States so we can build highways, improve 
productivity for Americans and save lives.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me join my friend, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], in commending the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking member and former 
chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for 
outstanding service to this Nation on important issues related to the 
committee on which he serves and particularly the highways of this 
country, and to also commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his 
leadership throughout the years as well, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and the Committee on Rules for bringing an 
open rule to the floor of the House, which is refreshing to see on this 
floor.
  I wanted to talk about the priorities in which we are addressing 
issues in this Congress and, of course, the rule debate is on the 
priorities which we believe are important to bring forward to the 
American people. While I think this highway bill is, indeed, an 
important bill, I think it quite frankly this month or in the next 2 
months, I should say, pales in comparison to what may in fact happen 
with respect to Medicaid and Medicare, a cut of over $450 billion for 
people who need those particular resources in order to survive either 
as senior citizens in this country or people who are struggling at the 
lower end of our economic spectrum. I would just echo the comments that 
were made by my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, the ranking 
member of the Committee on Commerce. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell], I think, correctly pointed out that we have had hearings on 
this highway bill that lasted 6 days. They started on February 8. 
Discussions have been going on for 7 months. We have also seen that we 
have had Ruby Ridge debated in hearings for 2 weeks, Waco for 2 weeks, 
we had 28 days of hearings on Whitewater.
  This bill, the highway bill that we are discussing today, 6 days, yet 
when it comes to the biggest bill that will affect over 70 million 
people directly and probably everyone in the country, cuts in Medicare 
and Medicaid, over $450 billion, this Congress is relegated to 1 day of 
hearings, none on Medicaid, 1 on Medicare. It is an outrage. It is an 
absolute outrage, Mr. Speaker, that that is where we are headed in this 
most important debate for Americans.
  Do the American people not deserve more than 1 day debate? Do they 
not deserve more than 1 day to talk about these ideas?
  For 9 months now we have heard talk from this side of the aisle about 
how they plan to save Medicare. But to this day we are still waiting to 
see what their plan is. We are still waiting for their details. They 
have brought a highway bill to the floor today, and in that highway 
bill, they have outlined where they want to take the country. I think 
they are going to find a lot of general agreement with that.
  My friend from Pennsylvania, whom I had a kind word about just a 
second ago, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], came to the 
floor 10 minutes ago. He talked about the highway trust fund and the 
moneys in that trust fund being reserved just for highways--just for 
highways--so they could not be used as a hedge against our ever, 
actually declining now, but at one time growing budget deficit. It 
strikes me as rather odd and peculiar that they would come to the floor 
and make that argument which, frankly, I do not have too much 
disagreement with, and yet, and yet, when it comes to Medicare, what 
they want to do and what they have done is they have raided the 
Medicare trust fund in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest 
people in our country and the wealthiest corporations in our country. 
It is hard to understand that type of rationale.
  But I guess I could understand it if I had a plan, as my colleagues 
on this side of the aisle do, that would double the Medicare premiums 
to about $100 a month, that would take away your choice of doctor, that 
would cut your benefits to pay for these tax breaks for the wealthy; I 
think I probably would want to keep that hidden, as well.
  So you want to talk about the truth? Let us talk about the truth here 
this afternoon. I ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle, why do 
not you tell people that not a dime of what you are asking seniors to 
pay in Medicare cuts will go into the trust fund? We have talked about 
the highway trust fund. Not one dime in the cuts in the Medicare 
portion of the bill that we will have shortly--$270 billion--will go 
into the trust fund. It is going to another fund to pay for tax breaks 
for the wealthiest few.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that the tax cut bill that is being proposed is 
$245 billion on this side of the aisle, and we also know that $270 
billion in Medicare cuts, and we all know the people who will be hurt 
most by your cuts are the people who need Medicare the most--older 
Americans, who pay into the system all their lives, who live on fixed 
incomes, and who cannot afford to see their Medicare premiums doubled. 
I only hope that you would not come to the floor and tell us that you 
are not cutting Medicare.
  Only in Republican Washington can you double somebody's monthly 
premium in this town and then not call it a cut. You talk about cuts, 
talk about Medicaid as well, Mr. Speaker. Republicans have proposed the 
biggest cuts, as I said, in Medicaid in the history of this country.
  You think they realize that if your Medicaid cuts go through, tens of 
millions of Americans are going to be denied long-term care, the 
nursing home care they need to say alive? In this country, 60 percent 
of Medicaid goes into nursing home care and if these cuts go through, 
$182 billion worth, in my State of Michigan, I am going to lose 15,000 
people who will not be able to have those services next year alone and 
175,000 over the course of the 7-year proposal.
  So, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me just end by suggesting to my 
friends that it is simply an outrage that we are not allowed to have 
more hearings, as we
 are in the highway bill, on Medicare and Medicaid, 1 day of hearings, 
1 day of hearings. We on this side of the aisle are so determined to 
let the American people speak on this that we will have hearings on the 
lawn of the U.S. Capitol over the next several days. We will bring 
people here so they can express themselves and express their views on 
what these proposals will do to them and their families.

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], a very valuable member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule which 
provides for fair debate and consideration of the crucial issues 
affecting our Nation's transportation needs.
  Without passage of a bill to designate the National Highway System, 
our States stand to lose a significant amount of funding desperately 
needed to improve this Nation's transportation infrastructure. My State 
of 

[[Page H 9262]]
Utah alone stands to lose up to $78 million of funding per year without 
passage of an NHS bill, money we desperately need to address the impact 
of our robust growth.
  Almost 2,200 miles of highways in Utah are proposed under the NHS 
bill. These highways carry more than 50 percent of the car travel and 
more than 80 percent of the truck travel in my State. This bill will 
play a major role toward promoting Utah's economic development and 
prosperity, reducing traffic congestion, improving air quality, and 
maintaining the quality of life Utahns have always appreciated.
  In addition, I am pleased with the provisions included in this bill 
that would help to mitigate the negative impacts imposed under section 
1003(c) of the 1991 ISTEA bill. Because of the difficulty of precisely 
estimating future ISTEA highway spending, the States will be hit with a 
significant reduction in highway funding for fiscal year 1996. This 
bill takes significant steps to help mitigate those impacts, helping to 
ensure that the States have funding they need to meet their highway 
needs for the coming fiscal year.
  I am also pleased with provisions in the bill that repeal Federal 
mandates and penalties, including repeal of the national speed limit 
and the crumb rubber mandate.
  I know repeal of these provisions is controversial; however, federal 
mandates such as the national speed limit simply do not make sense for 
sparsely populated western States like Utah. After discussing 
appropriate speed limits with our State director of public safety and 
other law enforcement officials, I am confident that the States will 
set speed limits that best meet their transportation needs without 
compromising public safety.
  Finally, I would like to commend Chairman Shuster for his efforts to 
take the Transportation trust funds off budget. I believe it is time to 
release these trust funds for their intended purpose: rebuilding and 
expanding our badly over-used transportation infrastructure. While I am 
disappointed that a provision to take the trust funds off budget will 
not be included in the bill we consider on the floor today, I am 
pleased that we will have a chance to vote on this important issue 
later this year.
  I urge my colleagues to support this open rule so that we may honor 
our commitment to designate the National Highway System to preserve and 
improve our Nation's transportation infrastructure.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], and the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Rahall] for this bill. I am going to support the rule.
  I have two amendments that are being incorporated into the bill. I 
want to discuss them briefly.
  The first one would aid safety rest stop areas for a full eligibility 
for 100 percent funding under the trust fund. In 1987 I was able to 
pass legislation signed into law that made bridge impact barriers, 
breakaway utility poles, signalization, pavement marking, signs, 
lights, 100 percent funded under the trust fund because people in 
States with limited money were fixing potholes but letting safety, 
which was our big talk, talking the talk, we were not walking the walk, 
in putting up the money for it.

                              {time}  1215

  My first amendment, Mr. Speaker, allows 100 percent funding for the 
safety rest-stop areas, and these are simple turnoffs, and I have 
report language that is submitted that is saying that they would be 
simple turnoffs, and there could be no fuel or food sold there because 
our intent is not to provide competition for commercial rest-stop areas 
by the States. That is a good amendment, and I appreciate the leaders 
on both sides having included it in this bill.
  The second one will study the compliance of the Buy American Act in 
the procurement by the Federal highway funds and trust fund. Now 
everybody in this House strongly supports it. Very few people realize 
the waivers and loopholes that are involved. Japan, as we speak, is 
coming up with a $100 billion infrastructure program to move their 
economy, and the last time they did we were not allowed to bid on many 
of those projects. I believe we should be putting more Americans to 
work with, in fact, infrastructure improvements in America, but we 
should be at least looking at the procurement in these expenditures of 
American-made goods and products.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the second amendment says, ``Look. How is America 
complying with, and the Department of Transportation, with Buy American 
laws, and how many waivers and loopholes are created in here, and how 
much purchasing of foreign-made goods is going on?''
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to support the bill, and I commend the 
respective leaders on both sides for this bill.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Mineta--who is retiring, as well as Mr. 
Petri and Mr. Rahall, for their work on this bill.
  I want to talk about two amendments I had included in the bill during 
committee markup. The first amendment adds the construction of safety 
rest stop areas to the list of safety projects eligible for 100-percent 
Federal funding. Currently, the safety rest stop construction projects 
are not explicitly part of the Federal-aid program, and are not 
eligible for 100-percent Federal funding.
  I am not talking about commercial rest stops--the ones with Roy 
Rogers and TCBY's. I am talking about the construction of simple turn-
offs where drivers can safely get some rest. I would hope that in the 
conference report, language is added that explicitly defines the term 
``safety rest areas'' as follows:
  Any project that provides drivers with an area where they can pull in 
and rest to reduce fatigue; and/or
  Any project to increase parking at existing rest areas where fuel and 
rooms for lodging are not available--in other words: noncommercial rest 
stops. This would ensure that States do not build rest facilities that 
compete with commercial truck stops or travel plazas.
  During my 10 years on the committee, I have been an outspoken 
proponent of full Federal funding for highway safety projects. In 1987 
I was successful in adding language to transportation legislation 
approved by the committee, and later signed into law, that made certain 
highway safety improvement projects, such as pavement marking, guard 
rail enhancement and traffic signalization, eligible for 100-percent 
Federal funding. My amendment would simply add safety rest stop areas 
to this list.
  Numerous studies have shown that the construction of additional rest 
stops would significantly reduce driver fatigue--especially among truck 
drivers--thereby reducing the number of traffic accidents associated 
with driver fatigue. This amendment will ensure that commercial motor 
vehicle drivers have the opportunity and means to obtain the hours of 
rest required by Federal hours of service regulations (49 C.F.R. 395).
  My amendment would not cost additional money--it simply gives States 
the flexibility necessary to use Federal highway money in the most 
effective manner to improve safety on their highways. This amendment 
says: ``Trust the States to determine what safety projects are the most 
urgently needed, and let the States decide whether or not they have a 
shortage of safety rest stops.''
  My second amendment directs the Secretary of Transportation to study 
how well the States have been complying with the Buy American Act in 
spending Federal highway funds. As you know, since coming to Congress I 
have championed the buy American issue. I believe strongly that, to the 
greatest extent possible, Federal procurement dollars should be spent 
on American-made products. Nowhere should this be more true than in the 
Federal highway program.
  Most Members of Congress strongly support the Buy American Act. But 
not many Members are aware of the many waivers and loopholes in the Act 
that, all too often, result in the purchase of foreign-made products 
with U.S. tax dollars. The intent of my amendment is to ascertain what 
percentage of the tens of billions of Federal dollars that have been 
spent through ISTEA by the States have been spent on goods made in this 
country. This is another commonsense amendment, and I am pleased that 
it was included in the bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leadership of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], 
full committee ranking 

[[Page H 9263]]
member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], and certainly the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], for bringing this bill to 
the floor. It is certainly a bill that I think we can all support, a 
necessary bill, and I have a question, Mr. Speaker.
  How would the American people feel if they knew this bill were coming 
to the floor, a bill that is going to control the spending of $20 
billion a year out of a trust fund, if they knew this bill were coming 
to the floor without 1 day of hearings? They would feel pretty bad 
about it, particularly if it affected millions of Americans. Well, 
guess what, Mr. Speaker? They do not have to worry about it because the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on a bill that has a 
trust fund and that roughly appropriates, or handles, $20 billion a 
year; there were 6 days of hearings in 1995 on this important topic, 
there were 6 days of hearings in 1994 on this important topic, there 
were 7 months of bipartisan negotiations. There was a bill that was 
introduced months ago. The American public can be secure in knowing 
this bill was fully deliberated.
  Now how would they feel, Mr. Speaker, knowing that there is a bill, 
might be a bill, out there that appropriates about, and let me think, 
Mr. Speaker. It appropriates about six to seven times what is in the 
highway bill. That is the Medicare trust fund. How would they feel 
knowing that the bill that would not get a day of hearings, affects 31 
million people, that the bill that the Medicare system will get 1 day 
of hearings; that affects 37 million people. How do they feel knowing 
that billions more is going to go into health care and will not get but 
1 day of hearing between Medicare and Medicaid?
  Highway trust fund, $20 billion a year, gets 6 days of hearings this 
year and 7 months of negotiations. Medicare and Medicaid, which 
Medicare is a trust fund, gets 1 day of hearings, and we have not seen 
the legislation yet that deals with that legislation, and someone spoke 
just a minute ago about States losing money. Thank goodness the 
National Highway System bill is moving because West Virginia could lose 
several hundred million dollars if it is not enacted by October 1. 
Thank goodness it is moving. Guess what West Virginia stands to lose 
under the Medicaid legislation that gets no days of hearings in which 
the bill came out and was introduced just 2 days ago? First estimates 
are somewhere between $3 billion and $3\1/2\ billion.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we can hold 6 days of hearings when a State is going 
to lose a couple hundred million dollars. We hold no days of hearings 
when a State is at risk for $3\1/2\ billion and its entire health care 
system is at stake.
  Mr. Speaker, I am urging a vote against the previous question. I do 
support the bill. I think it is interesting the roads that this will 
build will go to many hospitals. The routes will be open because of 
this bill; the hospitals could be closed because of the Medicare and 
Medicaid bill. I think people want a highway bill, but they do not want 
to get run over by the health care legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this proposed rule will set the priority 
for legislative business, and it is the wrong priority. This afternoon, 
after 9 months, we will have what a Republican aide to the Committee on 
Ways and Means has probably misdescribed as, I quote, the complete 
comprehensive details of the Republican pay-more, get-less Medicare 
plan. But the same aide says that the legislation just is not ready, it 
is not ready, and we are not ready for the legislation.
  So, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will have a meaningless, 1-day stacked 
committee hearing.


                             point of order

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Doggett] is in violation of House rule XIV that 
requires Members to confine themselves to the question under 
consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, the question under consideration is House Resolution 
224, the rule for the highway bill, and has nothing to do with 
Medicare.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. DOGGETT. And I also?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost].
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] 
objects to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] speaking about the 
resolution of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], when the 
matter before the House is the rule on H.R. 2274.
  The Speaker has ruled on this issue several times in recent years. 
Probably the clearest guidelines about relevant speech during 
consideration of a rule come from the Speaker's ruling of September 27, 
1990, and I quote:

       In the Chair's opinion discussing the priority of business 
     is within the confines of the resolution . . . the Chair has 
     ruled that it is certainly within the debate rules of this 
     House to debate whether or not this rule ought to be adopted 
     or another procedure ought to be adopted by the House . . . 
     but when debate ranges into the merits of the relative bills 
     not yet before the House, the Chair would admonish the 
     Members that that goes beyond the resolution . . .

  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] has not discussed 
the merits of Medicare legislation. He has not discussed the details of 
it or engaged in anything like a debate on that important measure. Mr. 
Speaker, the gentleman from Texas has confined himself to the priority 
of business argument, that the House ought to be debating the 
resolution of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] providing for 
hearings, providing for additional hearings, on Medicare before it gets 
to this important matter dealing with transportation. The gentleman 
from Texas has confined himself to the question of whether to adopt the 
rule before us or a different rule making in order the gentleman from 
Michigan's resolution that provides for hearings on Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the speech of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Doggett] is relevant.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Texas has just pointed 
out, the focus of my remarks from the outset is the priority of 
legislative business. If a rule is not an appropriate time to discuss 
the priority of legislative business, I know not when one could discuss 
the priority, and of course my reason for raising this issue of 
priority is that I made a parliamentary inquiry only about an hour ago 
to the Speaker to find out how is it possible to get before the House a 
resolution signed by 201 Members of this House asking for more complete 
and fair hearings on Medicare, and I was told there was no way to do 
that without the approval of Speaker Gingrich. So it seemed to me this 
was an appropriate way to discuss priorities because I would be denied, 
as has every other Member of this House, any other way of getting the 
issue before the House.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is a discussion of priorities which I plan, in 
the brief minute I have remaining, to intermingle with the highway bill 
under consideration because the two are very related.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Any other Members desiring to be heard on 
the point of order?
  If not, the Chair will rule.
  Debate on a special order providing for the consideration of a bill 
may range to the merits of the bill to be made in order since the 
question of consideration of the bill is involved, but should not range 
to the merits of a measure not to be considered under that special 
order.
  The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] has made the point of 
order that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] is engaging in 
irrelevant debate. Because the gentleman's remarks have in some 
respects extended to the merits of other measures, the Chair finds that 
the point of order is well taken.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] shall proceed in order.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is a highway bill, and 
it is very appropriate that this highway bill should be considered at a 
time that we are to hear the first details of the Medicare plan 
because, my colleagues, that plan has been parked at the end of a dark 
alley. Most people have no idea what is in it, but now suddenly it is 
being removed from the dark alley, being backed out of that dead-end 

[[Page H 9264]]
alley, and being rushed into the fast lane of the highway. It is like 
one of those giant 18-wheelers going 90 to nothing down the highway and 
let everybody else get out of the way.
  Mr. Speaker, in Texas we call it the bar ditch along the highway, and 
that is where American seniors are going to be left, in the bar ditch. 
They are going to feel that they have been hit by more than a highway, 
by a highway man, a bushwhacker, because they will have more than a 
flat tire along that bar ditch. They will have a flat wallet, and it is 
wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are proposing that America follow a 
highway to nowhere.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If 
the previous question is defeated I will offer an amendment to the 
rule. The amendment provides for the immediate consideration in the 
House of House Resolution 221. House Resolution 221 requires that the 
public be given adequate time to examine the radical changes in the 
Medicare and Medicaid Programs proposed for the reconciliation bill. 
The resolution also insists that committees conduct more than a single 
day of hearings on the largest cuts to the Medicare ever proposed. The 
public should be allowed to express their views before we are required 
to vote on such changes.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
I intend to offer be printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The proposed amendment to House Resolution 224 is as follows:

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in 
     order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, 
     to consider immediately in the House the resolution, House 
     Resolution 221, printed in section 3 of this rule providing 
     that consideration in the House of Representatives and its 
     committees and subcommittees thereof of any legisation 
     changing existing law with respect to medicare or medicaid 
     pursuant to the reconciliation instructions of the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996 shall be 
     preceded by adequate time for public examination of such 
     legislation and public hearings thereon, and expressing the 
     sense of the House that the Senate should similarly provide 
     for such public examination and hearings.
       Sec. 3.--

                              H. Res. 221

       Whereas the conference report on the concurrent resolution 
     on the budget for fiscal year 1996 (H. Con. Res. 67, 104th 
     Congress) and the accompanying statement of managers contain 
     reconciliation instructions to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means and the Committee on Commerce that assume reductions in 
     spending on medicare of approximately $270,000,000,000 below 
     what would be spent on medicare under current law during 
     fiscal years 1996 through 2002;
       Whereas that conference report and statement of managers 
     contain reconciliation instructions to the Committee on 
     Commerce that assume reductions in spending on medicaid of 
     approximately $182,000,000,000 below what would be spent on 
     medicaid under current law during fiscal years 1996 through 
     2002;
       Whereas that conference report and statement of managers 
     contain reconciliation instructions to the Senate Committee 
     on Finance that assume reductions in spending on medicare and 
     medicaid totalling $452,000,000,000 below what would be spent 
     on those programs under current law during fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002;
       Whereas approximately 37,000,000 elderly and disabled 
     Americans rely on medicare for their health insurance and 
     health security;
       Whereas more than 36,000,000 women, children, and elderly 
     and disabled Americans rely on medicaid for their health 
     insurance and health security, and for protection against the 
     cost of nursing home care;
       Whereas hundreds of thousands of doctors, hospitals, 
     laboratories, and other health care providers participate in 
     the medicare and medicaid programs and receive direct or 
     indirect reimbursement for their services from the Federal 
     Government in connection with these two programs;
       Whereas administrative and overhead costs are less than two 
     percent of total program costs for medicare and less than
      four percent of total program costs for medicaid, far 
     smaller percentages than any private sector health 
     insurance enterprise currently in operation in the United 
     States;
       Whereas achieving the level of reductions in medicare and 
     medicaid assumed by the concurrent resolution on the budget 
     for fiscal year 1996 cannot therefore be achieved solely by 
     reducing waste, fraud, and abuse;
       Whereas achieving reductions of the magnitude contemplated 
     by the budget resolution can only be accomplished by (1) 
     increasing the payments required from women, children, 
     elderly, and disabled beneficiaries, (2) reducing payments to 
     physicians, hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care 
     providers, (3) reducing coverage for current or future 
     beneficiaries, or (4) some combination of the foregoing three 
     strategies;
       Whereas the budget resolution requires committees to submit 
     their reconciliation recommendations to the Committee on the 
     Budget by September 22, 1995;
       Whereas as of the date of the introduction of this 
     resolution, no legislative language to achieve the medicare 
     and medicaid cuts contemplated by the budget resolution has 
     been introduced or otherwise made public, so that members of 
     the public and their Representatives in Congress have not had 
     the benefit of adequate time to examine, analyze, and 
     understand the impacts of the changes that will have to be 
     proposed to achieve the contemplated reductions;
       Whereas the Congress should serve as a partner with the 
     American people in addressing the Nation's health care needs 
     and problems;
       Whereas with the exception of national security matters, 
     there are few reasons for Congress to act behind closed doors 
     in formulating policy that will directly and dramatically 
     impact more than 73,000,000 Americans and their families and 
     will indirectly impact every American;
       Whereas there is concern that the lack of public and media 
     access to the formulation of changes in the existing medicare 
     and medicaid laws in connection with the reconciliation 
     process threatens the ability of all affected Americans and 
     their Representatives to evaluate such changes adequately 
     when they are finally made public;
       Whereas public hearings on the consequences for the United 
     States and its health care system of any such changes in 
     medicare and medicaid are necessary to educate the public who 
     must live with those consequences and their Representatives 
     in Congress who must act on the forthcoming medicare and 
     medicaid changes: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That--
       (1) any markup in the committees of the House of 
     Representatives or any subcommittees thereof of any 
     legislation changing existing law with respect to medicare or 
     medicaid pursuant to the reconciliation instructions of the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996 
     shall be preceded by a minimum of four weeks for public 
     disclosure of the legislative text of such changes, during 
     which time additional and thorough public hearings on such 
     text shall be held;
       (2) no such legislation shall be considered in the House of 
     Representatives until the requirements of paragraph (1) have 
     been met; and
       (3) it is the sense of the House that the Senate should 
     guarantee public and media access to and consideration of the 
     legislative text of any changes to be considered in that body 
     by adopting a similar schedule for public disclosure and 
     hearings.

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question, and I 
have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I, too, yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair announces that he will 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a 
recorded vote, if ordered, may be taken on the question of agreeing to 
the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 173, not voting 20, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 674]

                               YEAS--241

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson

[[Page H 9265]]

     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--173

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Brown (FL)
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Flake
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Jefferson
     Kennedy (MA)
     Meek
     Mfume
     Moakley
     Payne (NJ)
     Quinn
     Reynolds
     Schiff
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Torres
     Tucker
     Watts (OK)

                              {time}  1248

  Ms. MOLINARI and Ms. McCARTHY changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. RAHALL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 375, 
nays 39, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 675]

                               YEAS--375

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--39

     Ackerman
     Becerra
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Chapman
     Clay
     Coyne
     Dellums
     Dingell

[[Page H 9266]]

     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Hilliard
     Hoyer
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     McHale
     Miller (CA)
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Rangel
     Sabo
     Schroeder
     Stark
     Tejeda
     Towns
     Vento
     Waxman
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Gibbons
       

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Brown (FL)
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Doolittle
     Fazio
     Flake
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kennedy (MA)
     Meek
     Mfume
     Moakley
     Payne (NJ)
     Reynolds
     Sisisky
     Souder
     Tucker

                              {time}  1257

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote Nos. 674 
and 675 on House Resolution 224, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present I would have voted ``nay'' on 674 and ``yea'' on 675.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 224 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. 2274.

                              {time}  1259


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
2274) to amend title 23, United States Code, to designate the National 
Highway System, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hansen 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 Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rahall] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that once again the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure brings to the floor of the House a 
bill with strong, overwhelming bipartisan support. It is an exciting 
bill, it is a crucial bill. This bill giving final approval to the new 
National Highway System will create for America in the 21st century 
what the Interstate System has done for America in the 20th century.
  The new National Highway System recognizes and identifies 159,000 
miles which will be the top priority miles for America as we move into 
the next century of highway miles. While this represents only 4 percent 
of the total highway miles in America, it represents 40 percent of all 
the highway travel, 75 percent of truck traffic, and 80 percent of 
tourism travel.
  Indeed, every year we are experiencing on our highways a 3-percent 
increase in highway travel. If we compound that out, that means every 7 
years about a 30-percent increase in highway travel. Beyond that, by 
the year 2000, we are told there will be a 28-percent increase in truck 
traffic on our highways. So there is a crucial need for identifying 
this new National Highway System, giving it the top priority. Of 
course, the original interstate, the 42,500 miles of the interstate, 
are the original backbone of this new system.
  What we are about here today is building assets for America. Indeed, 
it is crucial that we pass this, because if we do not pass it quickly 
and get to conference with the other body, then $6 billion a year will 
be withheld from our States, money that has to go out to improve our 
highways.
  Indeed, it is critical that we create this new National Highway 
System for economic growth for America. This system will be the 
backbone of the transportation system of America as we move into the 
next century, to move people and products more efficiently, more 
productively, more conveniently, and more safely.
  I might close by sharing with the body something that a young married 
man who brought his wife to Washington on January 4 of this year, with 
his little children, said on television. When they asked him why was he 
here to see the opening of the new Congress, he said, ``I just had to 
come and see it, because with the opening of the new Congress maybe 
there will be some changes. Maybe the Congress will get it right.'' 
Then he went on to say, ``The Federal Government, in my opinion, has 
not done anything right in the past 20 years.'' Then he paused, and he 
said, ``except build highways.''
  I think across America there is strong bipartisan recognition that we 
need to build the infrastructure of this country so that this country 
can remain productive, so that this country can have our people 
traveling safely on our highways. For all of those reasons, I urge my 
colleagues to give strong support to this bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2274 was approved by voice vote by the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure on September 8, 1995.
  The most important provision of the bill before us today is the 
approval of the National Highway System, a 160,000 mile network of our 
Nation's most important roads. Although NHS routes comprise only 4 
percent of our Nation's public roads, it will carry over 40 percent of 
our Nation's traffic and more than 70 percent of our commercial truck 
traffic.
  The country has changed dramatically since the Interstate System was 
laid out more than 40 years ago, and the NHS will move us into the 
postinterstate era. Approval of H.R. 2274 will ensure continued Federal 
funding for these vital roads.
  H.R. 2274 also provides a comprehensive solution to the reduction in 
Federal highway funding that each State will experience next year due 
to section 1003 of ISTEA. According to the latest estimates from the 
Federal Highway Administration, this reduction could total as much as 
$3 billion, amounting to a nearly 13-percent across-the-board cut in 
each program.
  Unlike other proposals which have been put forth to address this 
situation, H.R. 2274 will fully restore funding for programs outside 
the obligation ceiling by utilizing available budget authority and, 
through the reprogramming of budget authority, will partially restore 
funding for programs subject to the obligation ceiling. It also will 
mitigate the effect of the remaining reduction by allowing States 
greater flexibility over a certain limited amount of unobligated 
program balances.
  The basic balance of funding control provided by ISTEA is retained in 
this bill since a State may transfer unobligated balances of urban 
suballocated funds, which are controlled by metropolitan planning 
organizations, only with the written concurrence of the metropolitan 
planning organization for that area. In addition, funds provided to 
States as part of the section 1003 restoration are subject to the urban 
suballocation in accordance with ISTEA.
  Finally, congestion mitigation and air quality funds must be spent in 
nonattainment areas, but can be used for any purpose--with all clean 
air requirements for transportation projects continuing to apply.
  In order to ease the burden on States, certain Federal mandates also 
are repealed, including a repeal of the requirement that States use 
rubberized asphalt, or crumb rubber, in a certain percentage of 
Federal-aid highway projects or face the loss of Federal highway funds.
  Although a prohibition on the implementation of the penalties has 
been included in annual appropriations bills over the past several 
years, H.R. 2274 provides for a permanent repeal. Also, the penalties 
for failure to implement various management systems are suspended until 
the reauthorization of ISTEA.
  During the committee consideration of H.R. 2274, two amendments were 
adopted which repeal two further Federal mandates. First, the national 
maximum speed limit and associated penalties are repealed.

[[Page H 9267]]

  The power to set speed limits will be returned to the States as was 
the case prior to the energy crisis in 1974. The repeal amendment was 
adopted by the subcommittee and also was reaffirmed by the full 
committee by large, bipartisan votes.
  Second, an amendment was adopted by the full committee to repeal the 
current penalties imposed on States which do not enact universal 
motorcycle helmet laws. Again, it will be left up to each State to 
determine whether to enact such a law, as was the case prior to ISTEA. 
This amendment was also adopted by a wide bipartisan margin of 38 to 
17.
  The remaining provisions in H.R. 2274 are, for the most part, minor 
and noncontroversial policy revisions or minor corrections to current 
law. I would note that certain trucking reform measures are also 
included in the bill which, again, are primarily very limited in scope 
and provided to certain segments of the trucking industry.
  These groups have worked with the committee over the past several 
months to demonstrate why certain regulations which are aimed primarily 
at long-haul, over-the-road truckers, may not be appropriate for 
certain other types of driving activities.
  In concluding, I want to thank our ranking member of the full 
committee, the gentleman from California, Norm Mineta, for the 
assistance he has provided on this bill and the leadership he has 
provided to our committee on both sides of the aisle over his years in 
the Congress and as a senior member of the committee.
  As we know, Mr. Mineta will be leaving the Congress next month, 
although his involvement in transportation issues certainly will be 
continuing, and in some sense even deepen. His dedication and interest 
in improving the Nation's transportation system has been of great 
benefit to our country, and so, while we wish him well in his new 
endeavor, his departure will certainly be felt, and felt especially 
deeply on our committee, and by his colleagues.
  The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], the ranking minority 
member on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure, has once again provided valuable 
input on the development of the bill before us.
  Finally, of course, the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster], has been instrumental in providing the critical 
leadership necessary to advance the national highway legislation. It is 
imperative that the House approve this bill so the required 
congressional approval of the National Highway System may be granted, 
so that the section 1003 restoration and mitigation provisions may be 
realized by the States, and so other improvements to our transportation 
programs may be enacted. I urge the House to approve H.R. 2274.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation, and I do urge my 
colleagues to do likewise when it comes to final passage. I join with 
the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], 
in commending all the work to bring this legislation together, 
including that of themselves, for their valuable patience in working 
with us, and willingness to compromise when such was necessary to move 
the process forward.
  I also pay tribute to our ranking minority member, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta]. I shall have more to say about him in a 
moment, but he has been, of course, one of the fathers of ISTEA, and 
this bill that we consider today is a product of that legislation.
  I say I am in support of the legislation, Mr. Chairman, because even 
though some of us cannot support every single provision of this bill, 
when all is said and done, the fundamental purpose of this 
legislation--the designation of a new National Highway System--is 
something that must be passed by this body and enacted into law in the 
very near future.
  Yes, we have had our differences on certain provisions of this bill. 
For instance, it would repeal the national speed limit. I, for one, 
will be offering amendments to address this issue.
  Yet, while I may not agree with what is contained in the committee 
bill on this issue, it is important to remember that this is a must 
pass piece of legislation, a number of accommodations have already been 
made to the minority since the bill was reported by the committee, and 
that today it is being debated under a free and open process that 
allows us to continue to pursue our concerns.
  This bill is must pass because at stake here is $5.2 billion in 
Federal highway funds to the States which will cease flowing on 
September 30th if we do not gain enactment, and an almost $3 billion in 
highway funds that will be lost due to a budgetary problem.
  At the same time, with this bill we are creating in this Nation a 
new, integrated network of highways, to be known as the National 
Highway System--the NHS--that will be the centerpiece of the post-
Interstate construction era. In effect, what we are talking about here 
today are the crown jewels of America's highways.
  As I mentioned earlier, a number of accommodations have been reached 
on this bill since it was reported from the committee. As reported, it 
contained a provision that would have repealed Federal safety 
regulation of 40 percent of the truck traffic on the roads today. That 
provision has since been dropped from the bill.
  It also originally contained a provision known as the ``trigger'' 
which would have jeopardized the entire fiscal year 1997 Federal 
Highway and Transit Program. This provision, at my insistence, and the 
minority's insistence, has also been dropped from the bill we are 
considering today.
  And again, for those who continue to have concerns over the repeal of 
the national speed limit, or with the repeal of motorcycle helmet laws, 
as proposed by this bill, the democratic process is at work here today 
and we will have ample opportunity to address those issues.
  So again, once the debates are ended, I urge all Members to support 
final passage of this bill.
  In closing, I do, once again, commend the chairman, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and the subcommittee chairman, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], for their work on this measure. 
And I pay special personal and professional tribute to our dear friend, 
the gentleman from California, Norm Mineta, the ranking Democrat member 
on our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, who will leave 
this body next month.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] will be remembered by all 
of us for the many great things he has accomplished for his 
constituents and for the Nation as a whole during his service to the 
U.S. Congress. Today I take just a brief moment to salute him for his 
diligence to highway safety. His concern is not only for our public 
infrastructure, but for our environment, our future transportation 
policy, indeed, for our very future in this country, by ensuring that 
we have better roads and bridges, and improved safety for the people 
who travel upon them. Norm Mineta has served as chairman of four of our 
subcommittees on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
and of course he has served as chairman of the full then Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation. A prime architect of the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, Norm Mineta has made his mark on 
the bill before us today as well. It is, again, a measure that we 
should all support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to join in recognizing the gentleman 
from California, Norm Mineta, and the outstanding contributions he has 
made, not only to this committee and to his State of California, but to 
the Nation as a whole. I put an extensive statement in the Record 
Monday night relative to our distinguished colleague, and I would 
commend it to all of my colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Collins] for a colloquy.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been concerned for some time over the growing 
shortage of qualified commercial truck drivers in this country. This 
stems from 

[[Page H 9268]]
my own personal experience in the industry, as well as from my service 
on the Surface Transportation Subcommittee in the last Congress. 
Estimates are that there are 300,000 drivers needed in the industry per 
year over the next 10 years.
  As you know, several years ago Congress required that any person 
operating a commercial vehicle must have a commercial drivers license 
[CDL] issued by his or her State of domicile. According to the Federal 
Highway Administration, this has had two important impacts on driver 
training:
  First, it has limited the actual behind-the-wheel experience for 
potential drivers, which is critical to effective driver training.
  Second, in addition, if a driver wishes to move temporarily to 
another State to undergo driver training, he or she cannot obtain 
either a learner's permit or a CDL because of the domicile requirements 
previously mentioned.

                              {time}  1315

  Recognizing these problems, the Federal Highway Administration issued 
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 1990 to correct the situation. 
However, due to more pressing matters, the action was not finalized. I 
understand that FHWA is now in the process of pursuing the issue, due 
to increased interest and the need for truck drivers. And I think it is 
important to note that not only has the Federal Highway Administration 
recognized the problem; but the industry, represented by the American 
Trucking Associations has also supported a change.
  For the purpose of expediting this rulemaking, I would simply like to 
ask the chairman whether you believe it appropriate for the Federal 
Highway Administration to address this issue, particularly with regard 
to issuing learners' permits.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would 
respond to my friend, I certainly do think it is appropriate. The 
Federal Government has already required issuance of CDL's by the 
States. I am pleased Federal Highways is addressing this situation, and 
I fervently hope that they will move very expeditiously on this 
rulemaking.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, because he has devoted so much of his 
career to improved transportation policy in this country, I yield such 
time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], 
the ranking minority member.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, today, two critical problems threaten the 
Nation's infrastructure and transportation program. First, if Congress 
does not designate the National Highway System by October 1 of this 
year, $5.2 billion of transportation funds will not go to the States. 
Second, because of an arcane budget scorekeeping rule, our highway 
programs face an estimated 13 percent, or $2.7 billion, cut across the 
board next year. The bill before the House today addresses both these 
issues: It designates the NHS and fixes the budget problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I did support the bill as reported by the 
Transportation Committee. During committee consideration of the bill, 
several controversial safety amendments were adopted. When I considered 
these amendment, together with provisions already in the bill which 
were troublesome, I concluded that the bill no longer represented a 
viable means to designate the NHS and I could not in good conscience 
support it.
  However, since reporting the bill, our committee leadership has 
worked together long and hard to work out a compromise and refocus this 
bill on designating the NHS, and I want to particularly commend 
Chairman Shuster, our very fine friend, Chairman Petri, and the 
gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Rahall, for their long, hard efforts 
to reach this compromise. We all recognize the importance of this bill 
and have worked hard to minimize the kind of controversies which could 
impede its progress, even where that meant accepting policies which 
were contrary to each of our own positions, but really which were 
necessary to move the bill forward on a bipartisan basis. The result of 
all of our efforts has been a better bill.
  Like any compromise, if perfectly reflects none of our views. Each of 
us can say there are many things in this bill we like and things we do 
not like. For instance, this compromise bill does not include the truth 
in budgeting provisions which the committee adopted and which I 
strongly support. These provisions would have taken the transportation 
trust funds off-budget and rededicated them to their original purpose.
  However, this bipartisan compromise bill also does not include the 
so-called trigger provision which I strongly oppose. The trigger 
provision would have sequestered fiscal year 1997 highway and transit 
funds in the hopes of forcing the reauthorization of ISTEA next year. 
In my opinion, such a provision would break our commitment to the 
States and needlessly create uncertainty at a time when we should be 
rebuilding our highways, bridges, and transit systems.
  In addition, the reported bill included a provision which I strongly 
opposed which would have waived all safety standards for commercial 
vehicles between 10,000 and 26,000 pounds. Under this blanket waiver of 
truck safety standards, nearly 40 percent of all currently regulated 
trucks on the road would have been completely exempt from important 
Federal safety requirements such as driver qualifications and drug and 
alcohol prohibitions.
  However, again working together on a bipartisan basis, the en bloc 
amendment which the chairman of our committee will offer today includes 
a somewhat improved version on this issue. Under the new provision, the 
Secretary of Transportation will establish a pilot program to exempt 
motor carriers of regulatory requirements only, only if, after normal 
notice and comment, he finds that the carrier would have safety 
programs that achieve a level of safety equal to or greater than if 
they complied with the regulations. While this compromise language is 
not perfect, and I remain worried about opening the flood gates to 
truck safety exemptions. I believe that the provision in this en bloc 
amendment is much improved from its original form in the original 
legislation.
  Despite these many improvements to the reported bill, the compromise 
bill still includes several controversial highway safety amendments 
which I adamantly oppose. This bill would repeal the Federal speed 
limit and allow States to have no speed limit at all if they wished. I 
would effectively repeal the motorcycle helmet requirement. And it 
would waive a variety of truck safety standards for specific 
industries. I believe that these provisions seriously threaten both our 
Nation's highway safety and the likelihood that Congress will be able 
to approve the NHS in a timely manner.
  Therefore, although I support this bill overall, there are provisions 
in this bill which I strongly oppose. like the safety amendments, and 
which I expect the full House will revisit today. As we discuss these 
safety issues today and amid all the rhetoric about States' rights, let 
us not forget why we are here: To designate the National Highway System 
and to fix a budget problem. Let us not allow this bill to include 
provisions which threaten these important objectives.
  If I might also ask of the subcommittee Chair, or the ranking member, 
indulgence in a little more time, I want to thank again the members of 
the committee who have expressed their generous comments about my work.
  But one thing about the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure is that it has always been a very strongly bipartisan 
committee. Whether it is the professional staff or the members, we have 
always tried to make sure public policy is in the forefront. So I would 
like to thank everyone for the courtesies that have been extended to me 
in the 20 years plus that I have been in the House.
  I particularly want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], whom I will miss very much. We have had a 
long career of working together on this committee. Mr. Chairman, I 
salute you and thank you very, very much for your working with all of 
us.
  Then of course, to the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Petri], 

[[Page H 9269]]
who chaired this specific subcommittee, and to my very good friend, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall]. I will cherish your 
friendship and your advice and counsel you have given to me over these 
long years.
  Of course, it goes without saying I am going to miss especially my 
seat mate, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. We came 
together in 1974. We have been very close personal friends. We have 
both gone through some very troubling times in the House, and we have 
counseled each other on a personal basis as well as on a professional 
basis. Jim, I will always hold you very close and dear to me.
  Of course, to my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster], again, a very, very close and wonderful friend.
  So I leave without regret. I am going to miss everyone, but by the 
same token, I know that this committee will carry on its very fine 
work. Again, I want to thank all the members of the committee as well 
as the professional staff for their wonderful work.
  Ken House has been with me for all these years, and there is no one 
who probably knows this title of the United States Code better than Ken 
House, and he is sort of like a real reference book. Ken, I want to 
just thank you again for all the hours you have spent and the time I 
have called you on the phone at 11 at night and bothered you at home, 
but again, thank you very much, and to all of you, thank you.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the ranking member of our Subcommittee on 
Water Resources and Environment.
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the gentleman from West 
Virginia for yielding me this time, the distinguished chairman of our 
Subcommittee on Surface Water and Environment, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster], our outstanding ranking member of our committee, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  Let me simply say, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Mineta] has been a great leader of this committee and in this 
Congress and a great American. I shall remember forever all the 
excellent work that was done on the ISTEA legislation a few years back, 
the long hours, the difficult hours, and difficult issues. We got a 
piece of legislation through that this country can be very proud of, 
innovative, advancing our transportation system, and it would not have 
happened without the strong leadership of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Mineta].
  I shall also miss him as the ranking member, and while we had great 
successes with the ISTEA legislation on this side of the aisle, our 
successes
 were not so great in the Clean Water Act, but his leadership and 
friendship and guidance on that bill were extremely important to me and 
valuable to this process, and I shall miss him very, very much. I wish 
him great success in all he does, and I know he will be extremely 
successful.

  Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely critical to our Nation's 
transportation system to have the National Highway System designated so 
that the States can have their fiscal year 1996 NHS funds.
  I fully and strongly support the designation of the National Highway 
System.
  I also believe we must correct the 10-0-3 problem that will result in 
an unfortunate reduction in the Nation's Surface Transportation 
Program.
  However, the bill that is before us does much more than those two 
essential actions.
  This bill is being used as a backdoor means of rewriting the 
compromises that made the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1991 a major breakthrough in transportation policy.
  I am concerned that this bill is anti-urban, anti-metropolitan and 
anti-environment.
  In recycling funds to solve the 10-0-3 problem, the bill provides 
another avenue for States to pressure MPO's into allowing STP funds 
that are attributed to that area to be used outside that area. What is 
the purpose of this attempt to rewrite the carefully constructed ISTEA 
compromise?
  The bill also allows Sea-Mack funds to be used for purposes other 
than to meet air quality standards or to provide air quality benefits, 
which is the requirement under current law.
  We can solve the 10-0-3 problem without rewriting ISTEA, without 
changing the rules for using the STP money and without setting up new 
procedures to transfer money out of metropolitan areas.
  I am also concerned about section 301 which makes a larger cut in 
operating assistance for large transit systems than for smaller transit 
systems.
  If we are going to cut operating assistance, then all systems should 
bear this cut equally.
  The provision is unfair to the riders of metropolitan area transit 
systems who pay their fares just like the riders of the smaller 
systems.
  Unfortunately, it appears that the critics of transit operating 
assistance believe the cuts should only come from certain systems, not 
all systems.
  This bill makes it harder for metropolitan areas to solve their 
transportation problems. Transit operating assistance will be cut, 
resulting in higher fares and less service which will force people off 
the transit systems and into their cars.
  Then we are allowing STP money to be transferred out of the urban 
areas and allowing congestion mitigation money to be used for other 
purposes.
  These changes are unnecessary retreats from the first-ever 
recognition in ISTEA of the special needs of metropolitan areas.
  These changes are bad transportation policy.
  Mr. Chairman, these provisions raise important questions about the 
direction of our national transportation policy. I hope that some--or 
all--of these problems can be corrected as the bill works its way 
through the process.
                              {time}  1330

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose].
  (Mr. ROSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rahall], the ranking member, for yielding this time to me, and I just 
want to compliment the chairman and the members of this committee for 
this bill.
  The section in this bill that deals with identification of high-
priority corridors specifies a route of Interstate 73 and Interstate 74 
through North Carolina that is the culmination of a tremendous amount 
of work that has been done by Members of Congress and especially the 
North Carolina Board of Transportation. It could not have happened 
without the good ear and the good help of the full committee, the 
chairmen of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, and I want to 
thank them and urge my colleagues to strongly support this legislation.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the current ranking minority member on 
the Subcommittee on Aviation, and any day, or any hour now, to be the 
new ranking member of our full committee.
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. I shall 
vote for the bill on final passage, notwithstanding the outcome of 
votes which we will have on highway safety issues.
  I want to make it very clearly I urge all Members on our side, all 
Members of the House, to support this legislation. I want to compliment 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] on his first highway 
bill, not exactly his first highway bill, but his first as chairman. He 
has been a partner with us on this side of the aisle for many years as 
we have crafted highway legislation. He has been a partner in 
developing what is the world's finest highway system bar none anywhere, 
in any country, and I know that his continued vigilance and enthusiasm 
for the highway program will ensure that we stay on track of 
maintaining the Nation's portfolio of highways, bridges, and seeing to 
the future growth needs of America which are founded upon our Nation's 
highways and bridges. 

[[Page H 9270]]

  Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, I do have some reservations about this 
legislation. It is in vogue in this 104th Congress to turn 
responsibilities back to the State or to give States new 
responsibilities, but the highway program is unique. On the interstate 
highway; 90 percent of the funds are Federal, 10 percent State. The 
noninterstate, 80 percent with matching funds provided by the State or 
local governments. The Federal Government raises the money, but States 
decide where the roads go, except for the Interstate System, which was 
thrashed out at the national level in consultation with State 
governments, and we are at the same point again, designating the post-
Interstate Highway System, the National Highway System.
  Unfortunately, however, Mr. Chairman, I think this legislation 
surrenders more authority to States for decisions on highways than is 
proper, than should be the appropriate balance of Federal and State 
responsibilities and one of the reasons Members over the last 10 years 
have come to the chairman and ranking member on the former Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation, now Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, with complaints, is that States have not been 
responsive, sufficiently, to local concerns.
  They say: ``This highway or high-priority item in my district is not 
being built.'' The fundamental reason was the State made a decision not 
to do it or not to do it for 10, or 15, or 20 years, and ultimately we 
took on the responsibility of including in national legislation 
specifically designated highway segments that were of national 
significance and said to the State, ``You shall build these segments.'' 
I think in a couple of years we will be back here again with complaints 
from Members saying the Governor, or the State Highway Department, is 
not responsive to my constituents. They are not building the roads that 
are high priority, necessary for economic growth, progress, not 
repairing the bridges, and would we, please, put something in the 
highway bill to do it, or they will go to the Committee on 
Appropriations and ask them to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the reservation I have about this bill as a 
policy matter, and I hope that in time we will address that matter and 
focus more authority at the national level as I think Members should 
have input because, after all, these roads go through our districts, 
serve our constituents, our communities, our local economic growth.
  The other concern that I have about the legislation, and I will offer 
an amendment to deal with it, is the safety issue. This amendment will 
focus on gathering information. It is not a new mandate. It is not a 
new requirement. It does not require any cost of the States. It does 
not take money away nor give them incentives to do anything. It just 
says, ``Gather information with the tools you already have about 
crashes, who pays, who gets hurt in crashes, how long are people 
hospitalized, what are the economic consequences locally, what are the 
consequences for health care providers.''
  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to take actions to diminish national 
highway safety standards, then the public ought to know what the 
consequences are, and we ought to have that information gathered so 
that at the appropriate time we can make the right policy judgments on 
highway safety.
  Before concluding though, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take this 
opportunity to pay very special tribute to our departing former 
chairman, the current ranking member, my friend, my seatmate of nearly 
21 years, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]. We unveiled his 
portrait in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on 
Monday evening. There was a beautiful outpouring of praise. At the 
appropriate time I shall have that included in the Congressional Record 
because those words need to be memorialized. There is no person of 
greater integrity, commitment to public service, commitment to duty, 
commitment to fellow legislators, than the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Mineta]. He has been a personal friend, a professional friend, a 
person impeccable integrity who leaves an aura of great distinction 
upon this body.
  Mr. Chairman, when asked, on the day he made his announcement of 
leaving the Congress, what he would like to be remembered for, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] simply said, ``For all the 
people in my district, that I never forget their names.'' There is no 
greater example of public service and of caring for people than that 
remark or than this person, my friend, Mr. Mineta.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett], my congressional neighbor.
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, a sharply worded Cumberland 
Times editorial about U.S. Route 220 in western Maryland hit the 
highway nail right on the head: I quote: ``U.S. Route 220 North is 
arguably the most dangerous stretch of highway in the (tristate) area * 
* * (its) s-curves make the road an obstacle course fraught with 
danger.'' In addition to highlighting the frightening hazards of 220's 
3-mile twist in Alleghany County, the Times editorial rightfully noted 
the value of an improved Route 220 to the economic development of a 
region ripe with promise and perfect for business growth. The inclusion 
of Route 220 as a designated highway in our national roadway network 
will serve as the foundation upon which the region can build a better 
220 and, consequently, a brighter tomorrow for all those dependent upon 
it.
  Before today, any substantial discussion in western Maryland about 
the overall economic development of the tristate region was hindered by 
a lack of regionwide attention to--and funding for--Route 220.
  With this comprehensive bill and thanks to the effective leadership 
of Committee Chairman Bud Shuster and Maryland's State Highway 
Administration, we're seeing Route 220 get what it certainly deserves: 
a designated place in our National Highway System. The measure before 
the House today appropriately includes the full stretches of Route 
220--in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia--as key highway links 
in the National Highway System.
  As a result, planned improvements for Route 220 will receive Federal 
funding priority. In the long history of Route 220, this is good news, 
very good news.
  The improvement of Route 220 north of Cumberland is not only 
important to Maryland but also to our neighbors in Pennsylvania and 
West Virginia. Route 220 continues into these States from Maryland. 
Maryland--under the impressive guidance of Transportation Secretary 
David Winstead, Highway Administrator Hal Kassoff, and House Speaker 
Cas Taylor--has authorized funding for right-of-way acquisition. 
Construction targets for Maryland's section of the road are within 
reach. For Route 220 to realize its full potential, it is imperative--
as Speaker Taylor as consistently noted--that West Virginia, Maryland, 
and Pennsylvania join forces to make Route 220 an asset to the region 
rather than a hurdle to development and safety.
  Improvements to Route 220 in any one of the three States must be 
matched by corresponding improvements to Route 220 in the others. I 
believe that this legislation is a terrific catalyst for such change, 
cooperation, and progress.
  I look forward to the continuation of a Route 220 coalition dedicated 
to the completion of 220 improvements throughout the tristate region. I 
will soon be meeting with my colleagues from West Virginia and 
Pennsylvania in an effort to lend whatever assistance we can to the 
project.
  At this juncture--and on behalf of those who share our interest in 
Route 220--I want to commend Chairman Shuster and urge the House to 
adopt the National Highway System language as detailed in the bill.
  The State of Maryland has advised me that more than 7,500 vehicles 
face the Route 220 minefield daily. That number is predicted to double 
by 2015. In the name of safety and for the benefit of the region, it is 
essential that we give Route 220 the attention it deserves and the 
backing it needs to become a reality rather than a roadblock to 
progress.
  I also want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri for his 
assistance in redesignating $440,000 in unused funds from Route 48 in 
Washington County for use in the I-70/I-270 interchange project, 
another very important project in our district, as part of H.R. 2274.
  Frederick County is one of Maryland's fastest growing communities. 
Yet, the Frederick 

[[Page H 9271]]
area is virtually the last place in America where major criss-crossing 
interstates lack complete, accessible, and safe connecting interchanges 
and sufficient highway feeder networks. Construction of the I-70/I-270 
interchange is one of the highest priorities in the State of Maryland. 
The release of this $440,000 will help accelerate the work on phase I 
of this critical highway improvement project. This is one more step to 
ensure that Frederick County can remain an active force in the growth 
of the State's economy and that of the entire western Maryland region.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Mascara], a new member of our 
committee, one who has rolled up his sleeves and is ready to go to work 
on these issues.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Mascara] is 
recognized for 1 minute and 30 seconds.
  (Mr. MASCARA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Shuster, as well as 
the ranking members, Mr. Mineta and Mr. Rahall, for their hard work in 
bringing this important legislation before the House of Representatives 
today. With the September 30 deadline fast approaching for 
congressional approval of the National Highway System as required by 
ISTEA, I support House passage of the NHS designation bill--H.R. 2274.
  It is important to point out that whatever feelings Members may have 
regarding certain amendments which were added or rejected during the 
Transportation Committee's markup or ones to be considered here today 
on the House floor; designation of the National Highway System is the 
most important part of this bill and the fundamental reason why the 
House should pass H.R. 2274.
  Before coming to Congress, I served as chairman of the Washington 
County Board of Commissioners for 15 years and was actively involved in 
promoting transportation and economic development projects in 
southwestern Pennsylvania. One of my main objectives as a local elected 
official was to create jobs through the promotion of sound economic 
growth. My experience has taught me, as studies all over the world have 
shown, that there is strong correlation between quality transportation 
systems and economic growth. For our nation to succeed, both 
domestically and in the international market-place, we need a top 
quality transportation system. The designation of the National Highway 
System is a vital step in the process to achieving a modern, integrated 
transportation system for the next century.
  I also know how important it is to hundreds of local economies 
throughout the country that there be no delay in delivering Federal 
transportation dollars--not to mention the hundreds of companies and 
thousands of construction workers that could be adversely affected if 
the National Highway System is not designated on schedule.
  States and localities all across this country have complied with 
Federal transportation regulations in formulating their States' plan. 
State DOTs have their transportation projects ready for construction. 
Let us do our job, let us make sure that we pass H.R. 2274 and 
literally keep the country moving in the right direction.
  Than you again to Chairman Shuster, ranking member Mr. Mineta, who I 
might add will be sorely missed from our committee, where he served as 
chairman during the 103d Congress and as a distinguished member of the 
House of Representatives as he moves on to life after politics. Also 
thank you to Surface Transportation Subcommittee chairman Mr. Petri, 
and ranking member Mr. Rahall for their diligent work on this 
legislation and I ask that all my colleagues support passage of H.R. 
2274.
                              {time}  1345

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Kim].
  (Mr. KIM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this House 
Resolution 2274, and I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman 
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
   Mr. Chairman, I plan to offer an amendment that lets States use the 
advance construction mechanism during the final year of multiyear 
authorization. Advance construction allows States to begin a highway 
project with the State's own funds and then apply for reimbursement 
from future allocations.
  I would like to point out that this does not commit the Federal 
Government to reimburse the project. It simply allows the State to 
apply for reimbursement. As the chairman knows, many States rely 
heavily upon advance construction programs. California, Florida, and 
many other States, including Pennsylvania, all commit over 75 percent 
of their annual highway apportionments through advance construction 
programs. Yet, because of a limitation we have under the current law, 
States cannot use their own money and then later ask for reimbursement 
in the last year of authorization. This is ridiculous.
  I have been told, Mr. Chairman, that California will have to delay 
almost $500 million in projects over a year because of this provision.
  I should also point out that my amendment is nothing new. In the past 
States were allowed to use advance construction programs at the end of 
a multiyear authorization. In fact, the advance construction law from 
1987 to 1990 was almost identical to the amendment I plan to offer 
today. My amendment would simply restore this provision, which is badly 
needed in States like California, Florida and other States.
   Mr. Chairman, even the Senate recognized this problem and included 
an advance construction provision in their language in their NHS bill. 
Their language is about the same as mine.
  I am willing to withhold my amendment Mr. Chairman, because of the 
commitment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] to work 
with me in conference and perfect a set of language, and I thank the 
gentleman.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and wish to say that 
Congressman Kim has certainly been a leader on our committee in 
bringing focus to many important issues, including this one about 
advance construction.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand it is a very important issue in California 
and other States. Indeed, without the provision, California could be 
forced to delay hundreds of millions of dollars. I do not believe it 
was the intent of Congress to cause such a delay, and I will be pleased 
to work with the gentleman in conference with the Senate to perfect 
this language. The Senate does have language, and I believe that we 
will strongly support it.
  Mr. KIM. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
bill to designate the National Highway System [NHS].
  When Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act [ISTEA], it directed the Federal Highway Administration to develop 
a national highway system prioritize our Nation's roadways. In these 
times of shrinking Federal budgets, our Nation must focus highway funds 
on our most heavily traveled roads. This bill to designate the NHS 
fulfills that objective.
  Mr. Speaker, by improving the Nation's most important transportation 
routes through the designation of the NHS, we can sharpen our 
competitive edge in international markets. In North Dakota, our farmers 
rely on high quality transportation routes to remain the most 
competitive producers in the world. To preserve and improve our 
competitive edge in agriculture, we must designate commodity 
transportation routes as national priorities. Again, the NHS bill 
accomplishes that goal.
  In addition to designating the NHS, this bill returns to the States 
important decisionmaking authority over transportation policy. An 
example, is the provision in the bill to repeal the Federal speed 
limit. I am an original cosponsor of legislation to repeal the Federal 
speed limit, and I am pleased it has been included in H.R. 2274.
  I believe that the individual States are in the best position to 
establish safe and appropriate speed limits based on local driving 
conditions. In North Dakota, we certainly enjoy more than 

[[Page H 9272]]
our share of wide open spaces. A speed limit that may be appropriate 
for the congested Northeast corridor is not at all suitable for the 
Great Plains. A simple and proper remedy is to allow the States to 
decide.
  Today, Representative Lowey will offer an amendment which would 
require States to enact zero tolerance, laws that would make it illegal 
for underage drivers to drive with a blood-alcohol content of .02 or 
higher. Under the Lowey amendment, failure to enact a zero-tolerance 
law would result in the Federal Government withholding 5 percent of 
highway funds in 1999 and 10 percent thereafter.
  While I understand and support the intent of the Lowey amendment, I 
strongly object the imposition of a heavyhanded Federal sanction to 
achieve that end. I would certainly join with Representative Lowey in 
encouraging States to adopt tough, strict drunk-driving laws. However, 
I do not believe that the Federal Government should dictate legislation 
to the States under threat of Federal sanction. The Lowey amendment is 
inconsistent with the bill before us today which repeals Federal 
sanctions and returns power and decisionmaking authority to the States. 
Therefore, I reluctantly, yet strongly, urge my colleagues to oppose 
the Lowey amendment and support this bill to designate the National 
Highway System.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 2274, legislation designating the National Highway System [NHS]. 
This legislation not only designates the NHS as established as part of 
ISTEA, but it makes a number of important policy changes.
  I am particularly supportive of this legislation because it 
recognizes the importance of Interstate 35 as a high priority corridor. 
I-35 is the only interstate in our Nation that connects Canada, Mexico, 
and the United States. I-35 is particularly vital to my district of 
Fort Worth and my home State of Texas because it serves as our main 
corridor of trade with Mexico.
  In 1993, our country ratified the North American Free Trade 
Agreement. This was the first step in improving our economy and 
strengthening our trading relationship with our neighbors to the North 
and South. However, the passage of NAFTA was only the first step. The 
responsibility of the Congress did not end with that historic vote. We 
must now act collectively to make the most of NAFTA by developing an 
infrastructure that maximizes the benefits of this agreement.
  One of the ways that we can accomplish this is to create a NAFTA 
Superhighway System. This concept continues to gain momentum around our 
Nation as an alternative to effectively and efficiently move cargo from 
point to point and from country to country. By recognizing the key 
arteries of trade in our Nation and utilizing the latest transportation 
technologies available, we can make great strides in ensuring that 
products manufactured in the United States reach their destinations in 
Mexico and Canada as quickly and as cheaply as possible.
  The system that I and a number of my colleagues envision as providing 
the greatest economic benefit is one that uses I-35, from Laredo, TX to 
Duluth, MN as the trunk of a NAFTA superhighway system tree. From this 
trunk, the system will reach out like branches to the North and South, 
East and West. This option would tie together the major economic 
centers of our Nation with Canada and Mexico and ensure that all parts 
of our country benefit from international trade and NAFTA.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud our colleagues on the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee for recognizing the importance of I-35 to 
the continued economic growth of the United States. I look forward to 
continuing to work with them and all the Members of the House on doing 
all that we can to realize the benefits of international trade and 
NAFTA.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2274, 
the National Highway System Designation Act.
  I commend Chairman Shuster and Chairman Petri, as well as their 
hardworking staffs, for their tireless efforts in bringing a bipartisan 
bill to the floor which not only reauthorizes the NHS but addresses 
funding shortfall problems which, if not corrected, will fall on the 
backs of our States.
  The other day a reporter, during an interview about the NHS, 
mentioned to me that the NHS bill was, according to her editor, not 
very exciting. While roads and bridges do not necessarily equal the 
gripping drama of the O.J. Simpson trial or a Clint Eastwood movie, the 
NHS is essential to each and every person in this country.
  The NHS represents some of our Nation's most heavily traveled byways, 
and while only containing 4 percent of U.S. roads, supports 40 percent 
of total vehicle travel and 75 percent of heavy truck travel. More 
importantly to anyone who travels our roads, the NHS means safety for 
travelers. Improvement of NHS routes, including widespread lanes and 
shoulders, controlled access and divided lanes, will help reduce 
accidents and fatalities. The NHS will help alleviate congestion on 
crowded urban highways. Also, it should not be overlooked that adoption 
of the NHS will not increase taxes. The funding will come from existing 
highway user-fees deposited in the Highway Trust Fund.
  While this legislation corrects many problems and gives States 
flexibility, it successfully fixes the 1003(c) problem. This problem is 
the result of highway spending exceeding the estimates placed into 
ISTEA. If not corrected, 1003(c) will result in an estimated $4.2 
billion in highway funds being cut from State apportionments in fiscal 
year 1996. For Ohio alone, not solving 1003(c) would mean a loss of 
$98.8 million. Additionally, for Ohio and other minimum allocation 
States, this legislation effectively addresses this issue.
  Although taking transportation trust funds off budget is not in the 
bill we are debating today, I wanted to take this opportunity to 
commend the leadership of Chairman Shuster and ranking member Mineta, 
in addressing this issue. They have set the stage for this essential 
measure being brought before the House so we can decide this issue once 
and for all.
  H.R. 842, legislation which will take transportation trust funds off 
budget, will put the trust back in the trust funds. In my State of 
Ohio, the Ohio Department of Transportation reports that we send about 
$1 billion in Federal motor fuel taxes to Washington annually. Last 
year, however, Ohio got back only $600 million of that money in Federal 
highway funds. What happened to the rest? Of the remaining $400 
million, $345 million of Ohio gas taxes went to pay for the Federal 
deficit, while the remaining disappeared into what ODOT has termed ``a 
bureaucratic black hole inside the beltway.'' This trust fund was 
created to keep funds for transportation projects around the country. 
Previous Congresses have abused the transportation trust fund as a 
smokescreen for their overspending in the general fund. I commend the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their commitment to put 
an end to these budget shenanigans.
  Finally, I would be remiss if I failed to add my voice to the many 
others who have commended ranking member Norm Mineta. As a new Member 
of Congress, I have come to have the utmost respect for Congressman 
Mineta's insight, arguments and bipartisan handling of transportation 
issues. My regret is that his departure from this body will deprive our 
number of great wisdom. I shall greatly miss his presence and wish him 
nothing but the best.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2274.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
provisions of my bill, H.R. 2144, the hours of service exemption 
provisions, that have been included in the manager's amendment to the 
National Highway System legislation.
  The hours of service requirements have severely restricted the 
ability of utility providers and others from performing their jobs. 
While the regulation had the good intention of improving safety for 
long-haul, transcontinental motor freight carriers, the regulations 
applied to all drivers of all vehicles that exceed a certain weight, 
irrespective of how the motor vehicle was employed. Many trucks and 
heavy equipment belonging to utility providers fell under this 
regulation. It imposed operational hardship on utility providers and 
also affected consumers.
  In the case of utility vehicle drivers, most of the on-time duty is 
actually spent repairing utility lines and poles--not driving. However, 
because of the hours of service regulations, the driver is often 
prohibited from driving after being out on a major repair call. In 
addition, this regulation causes a paperwork burden for utility 
companies in order to comply with it.
  The bottom line is this regulation can have an adverse effect on many 
important services. Being from a cold-weather State, I know the kind of 
damage ice and wind can have on utility poles and lines during the 
winter months. Unfortunately, the regulations prevent utility companies 
from using the summer months to rebuild lines and prepare them for the 
harsh winter. This ultimately affects the price and quality of utility 
service.
  Under the NHS bill, utility providers would be permitted to have 
their limit on maximum driving and on-duty time be reset whenever they 
have an off-duty period of 24 hours. I believe that this is a step in 
the right direction. And after speaking with my Nebraska utility 
providers, they are pleased with this provision. They feel that this 
exemption will help them provide better service and prices to their 
customers.
  I'm pleased with the attention the hours of service regulations have 
received. I would like to thank the Transportation Committee and my 
colleagues for their support of these exemptions and call on Congress 
to continue to work to make these and other regulations more sensible.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I support this National Highway System 
designation bill and urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of 

[[Page H 9273]]
this important legislation. This bill that we will pass today 
represents a major step in the right direction for further establishing 
highways as a national priority.
  There is a provision in the bill that I am very interested in and 
remain committed in moving forward. That provision is the I-69 
interstate highway project. This national highway is not only important 
because of the potential benefits for my district, but for all of Texas 
and the Nation as well.
  The bill contains provisions that designate I-69 as a high priority 
corridor. There is also a provision that establishes I-69 through 
Houston, TX.
  In my district, the development of the I-69 corridor will enhance 
mobility. Development of the I-69 corridor will assist in the widening 
and improvements along the Southwest Freeway from Rosenberg to Houston.
  Interstate 69 will be truly multi modal linking highway, rail, air, 
and ports together like a network. The Texas gulf ports, for example, 
represent a massive source of wealth for the entire State. Together 
they generate $40.9 billion in trade--in 1993. I-69 provides for the 
continued growth of the port facilities and provides high quality 
interstate access to
 the trading centers throughout the Midwest and the Northeast.

  I support designation of the I-69 corridor in the NHS legislation. I 
also support the Federal participation in I-69's locational study 
efforts. I will also support in any way that I can the Texas Department 
of Transportation's efforts to accelerate this planning and 
construction process for the I-69 corridor.
  As cochairman of the I-69 caucus, I believe that the development of 
the I-69 corridor will induce regional development and begin a process 
of uniting States and counties into a trade/distribution market with 
benefits accruing to the I-69 region and the entire State where I-69 
traverses.
  This process begins with the development of the infrastructure--the 
development of the I-69 corridor. With increased trade with Mexico, the 
potential economic benefits gained by the completion of the I-69 
corridor are tremendous.
  Mr. Chairman, I have merely scratched the surface with regards to the 
benefits I-69 will provide for the future of Texas and to the Nation. I 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important highway 
legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, as the House debates the National 
Highway System designated, I would like to commend the members of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on the bipartisan manner in 
which this legislation was written. Throughout my career in public 
service, I have worked very closely with transportation issues and I 
understand the impact that Federal highway programs have on everyone's 
daily lives.
  Understanding the importance of a strong infrastructure, I am very 
pleased that this bill begins the process of funding Interstate Route 
69, the Mid-Continent Highway. This superhighway, which will run from 
Mexico to Michigan will be a gigantic boost to our Nation's economy. 
With the increasing levels of commerce in North America due to the 
North American Free-Trade Agreement, a roadway that traverses the 
continent would be essential to helping the agreement reach its full 
potential.
  The highway will help create thousands of jobs, improve industrial 
productivity, and reduce transportation costs. The prosperity of our 
Nation is directly linked on our ability to move people and goods 
efficiently. I applaud the committee for their support of Interstate 69 
and look forward to continuing the process to bring the dream of this 
highway to fruition.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, as this House considers H.R. 2274, the 
National Highway System Designation Act, it continues to engage in a 
long standing debate on the broader issue of Federal mandates. As is 
found in the content of H.R. 2274, previous legislation of the 104th 
Congress has established a theme consistent with the main tenets of the 
10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states ``The powers not 
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by 
it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the 
people.''
  The basis for which Chairman Bud Shuster's able leadership should be 
commended is in his clear commitment to the 10th amendment and to those 
efforts designed to empower the States and the people. Therefore, with 
the chairman's input, H.R. 2274 recognizes that individual States have 
unique needs and priorities that they are best suited to address. In 
addition, the legislation cuts the Federal seatbelts that attempt to 
harness individual citizens from dangers best determined by themselves.
  There is no better example of Federal mandates being inconsistent 
with the Constitution than that of Federal statutes which require that 
States pass laws requiring the use of motorcycle helmets or face 
reduced highway funding. The history of motorcycle helmet laws stems 
from the 102d Congress and 1991 legislation that rings with Federal 
bureaucracy: The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
[ISTEA]. ISTEA penalizes States that do not enact motorcycle helmet and 
auto seat belt use laws by withholding up to 3 percent of their highway 
construction funds. The Motorcycle Riders Foundation has eloquently 
countered the faulty wisdom of these infallible laws in stating:

       Helmet laws raise very personal and emotional issues for 
     motorcyclists. Issues like: adults being responsible for 
     themselves; freedom of thought and expression; the government 
     telling citizens how they must appear in public--a helmet is 
     a piece of apparel; a person being forced to place an item on 
     their body which they feel is not in their best interest and; 
     the appropriate level of government control of and 
     intervention into personal behavior.

  I could not agree more with this rational position. This is why I am 
a cosponsor of H.R. 899, a bill to eliminate the penalties for 
noncompliance by States with the program requiring the use of 
motorcycle helmets. Chairman Don Young, who presides over the Resources 
Committee of which I am a member, introduced this legislation to 
widespread support. Such support is most telling when recognizing that 
202 Members have to date cosponsored the bill.
  On this issue, let us heed the advice of the States and individual 
citizens who best understand transportation issues. And while the 
founder's of this country may not have envisioned automobiles or 
motorcycles they did have it quite right when they yielded to the 
principle that local issues are best solved by the insight of locals.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 
2274, the National Highway System Designation Act.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member would begin by commending the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as well as the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking 
member of the committee, for their work on this bill.
  This Member would also like to direct commendations to the 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], the chairman of the 
Surface Transportation Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], the ranking member of the subcommittee 
for their exceptional work on 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 us 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 inclusion of a generalized 
representation of a new connector route linking Highway 20 to the 
expected site of the new Newcastle area-Vermillion bridge over the 
Missouri River. The exact route will be finalized following more 
careful study.
  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 its access road 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.
  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. 

[[Page H 9274]]

  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 the current National Highway System designations 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 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 
farther north than Yankee Hill Road and possibly south of Saltillo 
Road.
  This Member is also very pleased that the bill includes a provision 
he introduced to provide regulatory relief for farmers and farm 
retailers. The provision specifies that regulations regarding maximum 
driving and on-duty time for motor carrier drivers will not apply to 
agricultural drivers transporting agricultural commodities or farm 
supplies within a 100-mile radius during the planting and harvesting 
seasons, as determined by each State.
  The need for this change is obvious--each year farmers and their 
suppliers must be prepared to move quickly and work long hours when the 
weather permits. During certain weeks of the year, there is a small 
window of opportunity in the crop planting and harvesting season when 
the demand for farm supplies escalates. Unfortunately, this demand runs 
headlong into the Department of Transportation's regulations for the 
number of hours a driver can be ``on duty.'' To address this problem, 
this Member introduced H.R. 526, which exempts farmers and retail farm 
suppliers from these requirements when operating within 100 miles of 
their farms or distribution points.
  DOT's hours-of-service regulations are highly impractical, 
burdensome, and costly for farmers and farm suppliers because the law 
can require them to take 3 days off--at the peak of agricultural 
production--and wait in order to accumulate enough off-duty time to 
resume driving. This is because DOT regulations define ``on duty'' time 
as ``all time from the time a driver begins work or is required to be 
in readiness to work until the time he/she is relieved from work.''
  The hours-of-service regulations are directed toward long distance 
truck drivers. However, they also apply to the local distribution of 
farm input materials even though driving is incidental to the farm 
supplier's principal work function of servicing farmers. Over 80 
percent of our Nation's farmers utilize farm suppliers to help them 
cope with environmental regulations; develop, implement, and manage 
precision agriculture; and harvest profitable crops that produce safe, 
abundant and affordable food for Americans and the world.
  A specific exemption is certainly not without precedent. DOT has 
already recognized that the on-duty time of certain occupations is 
subject to special demands and DOT has granted seasonal waivers from 
hours-of-service requirements for small package delivery drivers during 
the holiday season and for the oil and natural gas industry. Farmers 
and farm suppliers engaged in the transport of fertilizer and 
fertilizer materials, agricultural chemicals, pesticides, seed, animal 
feeds, crops, and other essential farm supplies also deserve regulatory 
flexibility.
  As harvesting season draws closer, the agricultural community will 
once again be confronted with the hurdles presented by the unreasonable 
hours-of-service requirements which were obviously not designed to 
accommodate the special circumstances faced by farmers. This 
legislation resolves the problem in a responsible manner.
  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.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2274, the 
National Highway System Designation Act. I commend the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee for the leadership and commitment it has 
displayed time and again to creating a strong, viable transportation 
infrastructure to foster our Nation's economic development.
  Infrastructure is the key to economic development, particularly in 
rural areas like mine. Without continued commitment to an adequate road 
system, the economies of areas like Southern and Eastern Kentucky will 
fail to improve. The National Highway System fulfills this commitment.
  My district, located in the heart of Appalachia, continues to be poor 
relative to the rest of the Nation. Most of the area is located among 
mountainous terrain which, for years, has hindered access to my 
communities, resulting in geographic and economic isolation. Moreover, 
the mainstay of many of these counties' economies--the coal industry--
has fallen on rough times, resulting in hardship that can only be 
reversed through investments that take many forms. One form of 
investment, highway infrastructure, may be the single most important to 
our future.
  Therefore, I am delighted to see Southern and Eastern Kentucky has a 
strong presence on the National Highway System, a system that will 
serve us into the next century.
  I commend the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Committee for 
recognizing the needs of my region. I strongly support their 
recommendations to designate several corridors in Southern and Eastern 
Kentucky as part of the proposed National Highway System. These 
corridors include: U.S. 27; I-75; the Daniel Boone Parkway and KY 80; 
U.S. 25 E east of I-75; the Mountain Parkway and its extension, KY 114; 
KY 15; U.S. 23; U.S. 119; and, U.S. 460 from Salyersville to 
Paintsville, KY.
  Further, I commend the committee using this legislation, H.R. 2274, 
to take the next critical step forward on the East-West Transamerica 
Corridor--I-66. I thank the committee for working with me to designate 
the I-66 route from Virginia to Kansas, and for including provisions to 
designate of the Kentucky portion of the corridor through Eastern and 
Southern Kentucky.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation signifies a commitment to the 
transportation and economic development needs of this Nation. I urge 
all Members to support H.R. 2274.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I think as we look at how this House 
should conduct its legislative business, that the bill before us today, 
the highway bill, should serve as a model. And, I commend members of 
the committee and the Republican leadership for allowing a full and 
thorough discussion of this legislation and all its implications.
  The discussion of the highway bill has been ongoing for 7 months.
  The first legislative draft was presented in August, giving members 
ample time to read it before the bill was introduced on September 7.
  Finally, the committee held 6 days of public hearings on the highway 
bill, allowing the public to review the legislation and, more 
importantly, to allow the public to comment and testify on the 
legislation.
  Unfortunately, the manner in which this legislation comes to the 
floor, stands in stark contrast to another piece of legislation in 
committee, regarding a $270 billion cut.
  Instead of a month to study the legislation before it goes to the 
committee for a vote, the majority party will present its proposal for 
Medicare today and expect Members to be fully briefed for the hearing 
tomorrow.
  Instead, of the 6 days of hearings that the highway bill received, 
legislation to radically alter the health care system that services 37 
million American seniors, will have only a single day of hearings.
  The American people have a right to full public hearings, on the GOP 
plan to cut $270 billion from Medicare to pay for a tax cut.
  I commend members of the committee for their work on this highway 
bill. I wish that Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee 
would follow their example and allow full, public hearings on Medicare 
reform.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the National 
Highway System bill.
  I commend Chairman Shuster, Chairman Petri and the other members of 
our committee for their success and hard work in bringing this bill to 
the floor.
  As you know by now, we must pass this bill very soon.
  If we don't, billions of federal transportation dollars will be 
delayed.
  But this is also a good bill.
  It removes a number of burdensome mandates and restrictions on the 
states.
  One of these restrictions would have a tremendous impact on my 
district in Orange County, California.
  There is a provision in Federal law which prohibits busses over a 
certain weight to travel on interstate highways.
  The problem is that in order to comply with the Clean Air Act and the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, additional equipment must be added to 
the bus.
  This equipment is very heavy.
  And in Orange County, most of the public transit busses are now over 
weight.
  Fortunately, there is an exemption for public transit busses that 
drive on interstate highways.
  The Federal Highway Administration completed a study of this problem 
in 1994.
  The study clearly stated that these busses do not create a safety 
hazard.
  In addition, the Federal Highway Administration recommended that the 
busses be allowed to drive on the interstates until new, lighter busses 
are purchased by transit agencies.

[[Page H 9275]]

  Unfortunately, this exemption expires on October 6.
  After October 6, these busses will not be allowed on the interstates.
  In fact, the California Highway Patrol has already informed the 
Orange County Transit Authority that it will pull over these busses and 
force them to unload. This is ridiculous.
  The Federal Highway Administration has already said there is no 
safety hazard, but the Highway Patrol will force the busses to unload.
  To fix this problem, our bill exempts transit busses from the 
interstate restriction until ISTEA is reauthorized.
  This will give Congress the opportunity to create a program that 
phases in new, lighter busses without penalizing existing transit 
authorities.
  This is just one of the many ridiculous restrictions and mandates 
that our bill addresses.
  It's a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote for final passage.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, a sharply-worded Cumberland 
Times editorial about U.S. Route 220 in western Maryland hit the 
highway nail right on the head; I quote: ``U.S. Route 220 North is 
arguable the most dangerous stretch of highway in the (tri-state) area 
. . . (its) S-curves make the road an obstacle course fraught with 
danger.'' In addition to highlighting the frightening hazards of 220's 
three-mile twist in Allegany County, the Times editorial rightfully 
noted the value of an improved Route 220 to the economic development of 
a region ripe with promise and perfect for business growth. The 
inclusion of Route 220 as a designated highway in our national roadway 
network will serve as the foundation upon which the region can build a 
better 220 and, consequently, a brighter tomorrow for all those 
dependent upon it.
  Before today, any substantial discussion in western Maryland about 
the overall economic development of the tri-state region was hindered 
by a lack of region-wide attention to--and funding for--Route 220. With 
this comprehensive bill and thanks to the effective leadership of 
Committee Chairman Bud Shuster and Maryland's State Highway 
Administration, we're seeing Route 220 get what it certainly deserves: 
a designated place in our national highway system. The measure before 
the House today appropriately includes the full stretches of Route 
220--in Maryland, Pennsylvania and West Virginia--as key highway links 
in the National Highway System. As a result, planned improvements for 
Route 220 will receive federal funding priority. In the long history of 
Route 220, this is good news . . . very good news.
  The improvement of Route 220 north of Cumberland is not only 
important to Maryland but also to our neighbors in Pennsylvania and 
West Virginia. Route 220 continues into these states from Maryland. 
Maryland--under the impressive guidance of Transportation Secretary 
David Winstead, Highway Administrator Hal Kassoff and House Speaker Cas 
Taylor--has authorized funding for right-of-way acquisition. 
Construction targets for Maryland's section of the road are within 
reach. For Route 220 to realize its full potential, it is imperative--
as Speaker Taylor has consistently noted--that West Virginia, Maryland 
and Pennsylvania join forces to make Route 220 an asset to the region 
rather than a hurdle to development and safety. Improvements to Route 
220 in any one of the three states must be matched by corresponding 
improvements to Route 220 in the others. I believe that this 
legislation is a terrific catalyst for such change, cooperation and 
progress.
  I look forward to the continuation of a Route 220 coalition dedicated 
to the completion of 220 improvements throughout the region. I will 
soon be meeting with my colleagues from West Virginia and Pennsylvania 
in an effort to lend whatever assistance we can to the project.
  At this juncture--and on behalf of those who share our interest in 
Route 220--I want to commend Chairman Shuster and urge the House to 
adopt the National Highway System language as detailed in the bill. The 
State of Maryland has advised me that more than 7,500 vehicles face the 
Route 220 minefield daily. That number is predicted to double by 2015. 
In the name of safety and for the benefit of the region, it is 
essential that we give Route 220 the attention it deserves and the 
backing it needs to become a reality rather than a roadblock to 
progress.
  I also want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri for his 
assistance in redesignating $440,000 in unused funds from Rt. 48 in 
Washington County for use in the I-70/I-270 interchange project as part 
of H.R. 2274.
  Frederick County is one of Maryland's fastest growing communities. 
Yet, the Frederick area is virtually the last place in America where 
major criss-crossing interstates lack complete, accessible and safe 
connecting interchanges and sufficient highway feeder networks. 
Construction of the I-70/I-270 interchange is one of the highest 
priorities in the state of Maryland. The release of this $440,000 will 
help accelerate the work on Phase I of this critical highway 
improvement project. This is one more step to ensure that Frederick 
County will remain an active force in the growth of the state's economy 
and that of the entire western Maryland region.
  I thank Chairman Shuster and the Speaker for this opportunity and 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, as the debate proceeds on H.R. 2274, 
the National Highway System Designation Act, I want to register my 
views on several provisions that are of critical importance to the 
Nation as well as to my home State of Texas.
  The bill establishes priorities for our highway and transportation 
needs. It provides us with a mechanism to support infrastructure 
projects which have national significance. One such project which I 
commend the committee for including in the legislation would extend 
high-priority corridor 18 from where it currently ends in Houston, TX, 
to the Mexican border in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.
  The Rio Grande Valley of south Texas is one of the main gateways for 
goods entering and exiting the United States to Mexico. Its two main 
north-south transportation arteries, U.S. Highways 281 and 77, are the 
two busiest highways going to and from our southern border. In fact, in 
1993, these two highways handled approximately 4.7 million vehicles, a 
fourth of which were trucks.
  Rio Grande Valley highways service nine international border 
crossings which have a total of 30 lanes. In 1994, these nine ports of 
entry handled approximately 28.3 million crossings.
  The extension of high-priority corridor 18 into the Lower Rio Grande 
Valley will link together many of the major economic centers of our 
Nation with Canada and Mexico, providing us with a seamless trade 
corridor for the safe and efficient flow of goods. The extension of 
corridor 18 into south Texas ties in with planned infrastructure 
developments in Mexico. The entire United States will benefit from this 
linkage which will enhance economic development and international 
trade.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for the general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of H.R. 2349 shall be considered by titles as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment. The first two sections and 
each title are considered read.
  Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to 
consider the amendment printed in House Report 104-252 if offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] or his designee. That 
amendment shall be considered read, may amend portions of the bill not 
yet read for amendment, is not subject to amendment, and is not subject 
to a demand for division of the question. Debate on the amendment is 
limited to 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent of the amendment.
  After disposition of that amendment, the bill as then perfected will 
be considered as original text.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
who has caused an amendment to be printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on 
the amendment relating to the repeal of the speed limit be limited to 1 
hour, equally divided, 30 minutes on either side, and that the 
subsequent speed limit amendment be limited to 20 minutes divided 
equally on either side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.


                    amendment offered by mr. shuster

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shuster pursuant to House 
     Resolution 224: Page 11, line 18, strike ``$360,420,595'' and 
     insert ``$321,420,595''.
       Page 15, strike lines 12 through 14 and insert the 
     following:
       (B) by striking ``1996, and 1997'' and inserting ``and 
     1996, and $146,000,000 for fiscal year 1997''.
       Page 25, line 5, strike ``any'' and all that follows 
     through ``limitation so that'' on line 8 and insert the 
     following:


[[Page H 9276]]

     section 5336(d) of title 49, United States Code, the 
     Secretary shall distribute the limitation on operating 
     assistance under such section--
       (1) so that
       Page 25, line 12, strike ``fiscal year 1996'' and insert 
     ``each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       Page 25, line 14, by striking the period and inserting ``, 
     and''.
       Page 25, after line 14, insert the following:
       (2) so that an urbanized area that 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, will receive under the distribution 
     of such limitation for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997, 
     90 percent of the amount of funds apportioned in fiscal 
     year 1982 under sections 5(a)(1)(A), 5(a)(2)(A), and 
     5(a)(3)(A) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 to 
     such area.
       Page 35, line 8, strike ``shall be'' and insert ``shall not 
     be less than''.
       Page 36, after line 9, insert the following:
       (t) Suspended Light Rail System Technology Pilot Project.--
     Section 5320 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (h)(1)(A) by striking ``for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1992,'';
       (2) in subsection (h)(1)(B) by striking ``for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1993,'';
       (3) in subsection (h)(1)(C) by striking ``for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1994,''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Deadline.--
       ``(1) Completion of competition.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section, not later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     complete the national competition initiated under subsection 
     (c) by selecting the public entity referred to in subsection 
     (c)(3).
       ``(2) Thereafter.--Following selection of the public entity 
     in accordance with paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) the Secretary shall make to such public entity the 
     payments under subsections (h)(1)(B) and (h)(1)(C); except 
     that such payments shall be made in the form of grants under 
     section 5312(a); and
       ``(B) the Secretary, upon completion of preliminary 
     engineering and design, shall negotiate and enter into a full 
     financing grant agreement with such public entity under 
     subsection (e), consistent with section 5309(g).''.
       Page 36, line 10, strike ``(t)'' and insert ``(u)''.
       Page 51, line 1, after ``Secretary'' insert ``, in 
     consultation with the Federal Communications Commission and 
     the National Telecommunications and Information 
     Administration,''.
       Page 69, line 18, before ``Arkansas'' insert 
     ``Mississippi,''.
       Page 69, line 25, strike ``(20)'' and insert ``(18)''.
       Page 71, line 17, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     the final period.
       Page 71, after line 17, insert the following:
       ``(27) The Camino Real Corridor from El Paso, Texas, to 
     Denver, Colorado, as follows:
       ``(A) In the State of Texas, the Camino Real Corridor shall 
     generally follow--
       ``(i) arterials from the international ports of entry to I-
     10 in El Paso County; and
       ``(ii) I-10 from El Paso County to the New Mexico border.
       ``(B) In the State of New Mexico, the Camino Real Corridor 
     shall generally follow--
       ``(i) I-10 from the Texas Border to Las Cruces; and
       ``(ii) I-25 from Las Cruces to the Colorado Border.
       ``(C) In the State of Colorado, the Camino Real Corridor 
     shall generally follow I-25 from the New Mexico Border to 
     Denver.''.
       Page 82, line 3, strike ``and''.
       Page 82, line 15, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 82, after line 15, insert the following:
       (3) in item 33, relating to Orange County, New York, strike 
     ``Stuart Airport Interchange Project'' and insert ``Stewart 
     Airport interchange projects''.
       Page 86, line 20, before the period insert ``, including 
     the structure over the Delaware River''.
       Page 93, line 17, strike ``50'' and insert ``100''.
       Page 94, after line 13, insert the following:
       (4) Drivers of utility service vehicles.--Such regulations 
     shall, in the case of a driver of a utility service vehicle, 
     permit any period of 8 consecutive days to end with the 
     beginning of an off-duty period of 24 or more consecutive 
     hours for the purposes of determining maximum driving and on-
     duty time.
       Page 94, line 14, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       Page 96, after line 24, insert the following:
       (6) Utility service vehicle.--The term ``utility service 
     vehicle'' means any motor vehicle, regardless of gross 
     weight--
       (A) used on highways in interstate or intrastate commerce 
     in the furtherance of building, repairing, expanding, 
     improving, maintaining, or operating any structures, 
     facilities, excavations, poles, lines, or any other physical 
     feature necessary for the delivery of public utility 
     services, including the furnishing of electric, water, 
     sanitary sewer, telephone, and television cable or community 
     antenna service;
       (B) while engaged in any activity necessarily related to 
     the ultimate delivery of such public utility services to 
     consumers, including travel or movement to, from, upon, or 
     between activity sites (including occasional travel or 
     movement outside the service area necessitated by any utility 
     emergency as determined by the utility provider); and
       (C) except for any occasional emergency use, operated 
     primarily within the service area of a utility's subscribers 
     or consumers, without regard to whether the vehicle is owned, 
     leased, or rented or otherwise contracted for by the utility.
       Page 97, line 2, strike ``erected under'' and insert 
     ``referred to in''.
       Page 97, after line 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 354. MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM.

       Section 31136(e) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1) In general.--'' before ``After 
     notice'';
       (2) by indenting paragraph (1), as designated by paragraph 
     (1) of this section, and moving paragraph (1), as so 
     redesignated, 2 ems to the right; and
       (3) by adding the following at the end:
       ``(2) Motor carrier safety program.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary, within 180 days of the 
     application of an operator of motor vehicles with a gross
      vehicle weight rating of at least 10,001 pounds but not more 
     than 26,000 pounds, shall exempt some or all of such 
     vehicles and drivers of such vehicles from some or all of 
     the regulations prescribed under this section and sections 
     504 and 31502 of this title if the Secretary finds such 
     applicant--
       ``(i) has a current satisfactory safety fitness rating 
     issued by the Secretary; and
       ``(ii) will implement a program of safety management 
     controls designed to achieve a level of operational safety 
     equal to or greater than that resulting from compliance with 
     the regulations prescribed under this section.

     The Secretary shall modify the exemption if there is a 
     material change in the regulations prescribed under such 
     sections. In granting such exemption, the Secretary shall 
     ensure that approved participants in the motor carrier safety 
     program are subject to a minimum of paperwork and regulatory 
     burdens.
       ``(B) Monitoring; exemption period.--The Secretary and 
     participants in the program established by this paragraph 
     shall periodically monitor the safety of vehicles and drivers 
     exempted from regulations under the program. An exemption 
     approved under subparagraph (A) shall remain in effect until 
     such time as the Secretary finds--
       ``(i) that the operator has exceeded the average ratio of 
     preventable accidents to vehicle miles travelled for a period 
     of 12 months for the class of vehicles with a gross vehicle 
     weight of at least 10,001 pounds but not more than 26,000 
     pounds; or
       ``(ii) that such operator's exemption is not in the public 
     interest and would result in a significant adverse impact on 
     the safety of commercial motor vehicles.
       ``(C) Factors.--In approving applications under the program 
     established by this paragraph, the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) ensure that applicants in the program represent a 
     broad cross-section of fleet size and operators of vehicles 
     between 10,000 and 26,000 pounds; and
       ``(ii) to the extent feasible, ensure participation by as 
     many qualified applicants as possible.
       ``(D) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not grant the 
     exemptions set forth in subparagraph (A) to vehicles--
       ``(i) designed to transport more than 15 passengers; 
     including the driver; or
       ``(ii) used in transporting material found by the Secretary 
     to be hazardous under section 5103 of this title and 
     transported in a quantity requiring placarding under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary under such section 
     5103.
       ``(E) Emergencies.--The Secretary may revoke or modify the 
     participation of an operator in the program established by 
     this section in the case of an emergency.
       ``(3) Review of regulations.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
     zero-based review of the need and the costs and benefits of 
     all regulations issued under this section and sections 504 
     and 31502 of this title to determine whether such regulations 
     should apply to vehicles weighing between 10,000 and 26,000 
     pounds. The review shall focus on the appropriate level of 
     safety and the paperwork and regulatory burdens of such 
     regulations as they apply to operators of vehicles weighing 
     between 10,000 and 26,000 pounds. The Secretary shall 
     complete the review within 18 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph. Upon completion of the review, 
     the Secretary shall grant such exemptions or modify or repeal 
     existing regulations to the extent appropriate.''.
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this is something I believe we have worked 
out. It is an en bloc amendment which makes several technical and 
conforming changes to existing provisions and adds noncontroversial, 
modest policy changes, reduces the authorized level of the State 
restoration program by $39 million in fiscal 1996, to eliminate a 
budget point of order, and to conform with a CBO estimate and strikes a 
fiscal 1996 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rescission.
  It makes technical and conforming changes which limit the 
distribution of operating assistance in light of budget 

[[Page H 9277]]
cuts, and it makes technical and conforming changes to an IC transit 
project, description change, as well as other technical and conforming 
changes, and I would ask support for the amendment.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say we have worked on this 
closely with leaders on both sides of the aisle. I believe it has 
everyone's concurrence and it does just make conforming and technical 
changes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment? If 
not, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the amendment on our side 
that addresses many of the concerns which we addressed in our opening 
comments. I commend the chairman for offering this amendment and we 
support it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

       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 1995''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

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

                    TITLE I--NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Sec. 101. National Highway System designation.

                 TITLE II--HIGHWAY FUNDING RESTORATION

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 203. State high priority project restoration program.
Sec. 204. Rescissions.
Sec. 205. State unobligated balance flexibility.
Sec. 206. Minimum allocation.
Sec. 207. Relief from mandates.
Sec. 208. Definitions.

                  TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Distribution of transit operating assistance limitation.
Sec. 302. Accountability for high cost Federal-aid projects.
Sec. 303. Letters of intent and full financing grant and early systems 
              work agreements.
Sec. 304. Report on capital projects.
Sec. 305. Repeal and modification of existing projects.
Sec. 306. Miscellaneous transit projects.
Sec. 307. Metropolitan planning for transit projects.
Sec. 308. Contracting for engineering and design services.
Sec. 309. Ferry boats and terminal facilities.
Sec. 310. Utilization of the private sector for surveying and mapping 
              services.
Sec. 311. Formula grant program.
Sec. 312. Accessibility of over-the-road buses to individuals with 
              disabilities.
Sec. 313. Alaska Railroad.
Sec. 314. Alcohol and controlled substances testing.
Sec. 315. Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures.
Sec. 316. Safety research initiatives.
Sec. 317. Public transit vehicles exemption.
Sec. 318. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program.
Sec. 319. Quality improvement.
Sec. 320. Applicability of transportation conformity requirements.
Sec. 321. Quality through competition.
Sec. 322. Applicability of certain vehicle weight limitations in 
              Wisconsin.
Sec. 323. Treatment of Centennial Bridge, Rock Island, Illinois, 
              agreement.
Sec. 324. Metric requirements and signs.
Sec. 325. ISTEA technical clarification.
Sec. 326. Metropolitan planning for highway projects.
Sec. 327. Non-Federal share for certain toll bridge projects.
Sec. 328. Discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and 
              surveys.
Sec. 329. National recreational trails.
Sec. 330. Identification of high priority corridors.
Sec. 331. High priority corridor feasibility studies.
Sec. 332. High cost bridge projects.
Sec. 333. Congestion relief projects.
Sec. 334. High priority corridors on National Highway System.
Sec. 335. High priority corridor projects.
Sec. 336. Rural access projects.
Sec. 337. Urban access and mobility projects.
Sec. 338. Innovative projects.
Sec. 339. Intermodal projects.
Sec. 340. Miscellaneous revisions to Surface Transportation and Uniform 
              Relocation Assistance Act of 1987.
Sec. 341. Eligibility.
Sec. 342. Orange County, California, toll roads.
Sec. 343. Miscellaneous studies.
Sec. 344. Collection of bridge tolls.
Sec. 345. National driver register.
Sec. 346. Roadside barrier technology.
Sec. 347. Motorist call boxes.
Sec. 348. Repeal of national maximum speed limit compliance program.
Sec. 349. Elimination of penalty for noncompliance for motorcycle 
              helmets.
Sec. 350. Safety rest areas.
Sec. 351. Exemptions from requirements relating to commercial motor 
              vehicles and their operators.
Sec. 352. Traffic control signs.
Sec. 353. Brightman Street Bridge, Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. SECRETARY DEFINED.

       In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Transportation.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:

                    TITLE I--NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM

     SEC. 101. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION.

       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 September 1, 1995, 
     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 Transportation and 
     Infrastructure
      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.--
       ``(A) Initial submission.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of the National Highway System 
     Designation Act of 1995, 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 connections to major ports, airports, 
     international border crossings, public transportation and 
     transit facilities, interstate bus terminals, and rail and 
     other intermodal transportation facilities.
       ``(B) Congressional high priority corridors.--Upon the 
     completion of feasibility studies, the Secretary shall submit 
     under paragraph (1) proposed modifications to the National 
     Highway System consisting of 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).
       ``(4) Interim eligibility.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), a 
     modification to the National Highway System which adds to the 
     National Highway System a connection to a major port, 
     airport, international border crossing, public transportation 
     or transit facility, interstate bus terminal, or rail or 
     other intermodal transportation facility shall be eligible 
     for funds apportioned under section 104(b)(1) for the 
     National Highway System if the Secretary finds that such 
     modification is consistent with criteria developed by the 
     Secretary for such modifications to the National Highway 
     System.
       ``(B) Period of eligibility.--A modification to the 
     National Highway System which is eligible under subparagraph 
     (A) for funds apportioned under section 104(b)(1) may remain 
     eligible for such funds only until the date on which a law 
     has been enacted approving modifications to the National 
     Highway System which connect the National Highway System to 
     facilities referred to in subparagraph (A).''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:
                 TITLE II--HIGHWAY FUNDING RESTORATION
     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Highway Funding 
     Restoration Act of 1995''.
     
[[Page H 9278]]


     SEC. 202. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds and declares that--
       (1) Federal infrastructure spending on highways is critical 
     to the efficient movement of goods and people in the United 
     States;
       (2) section 1003(c) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 has been estimated to 
     result in fiscal year 1996 highway spending being reduced by 
     as much as $4,200,000,000;
       (3) such section 1003(c) will cause every State to lose 
     critical funds from the Highway Trust Fund that can never be 
     recouped; and
       (4) the funding reduction would have disastrous effects on 
     the national economy, impede interstate commerce, and 
     jeopardize the 40-year Federal investment in the Nation's 
     highway system.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to make the program categories in the current Federal-
     aid highway program more flexible so that States may fund 
     current, high-priority projects in fiscal year 1996;
       (2) to eliminate programs that are not critical during 
     fiscal year 1996 and to reallocate funds so that the States 
     will be able to continue their core transportation 
     infrastructure programs;
       (3) to restore funding for exempt highway programs;
       (4) to ensure the equitable distribution of funds to 
     urbanized areas with a population over 200,000 in a manner 
     consistent with the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991; and
       (5) to suspend certain penalties that would be imposed on 
     the States in fiscal year 1996.

     SEC. 203. STATE HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT RESTORATION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--On October 1 of each of fiscal years 1996 
     and 1997, or as soon as possible thereafter, the Secretary 
     shall allocate among the States the amounts made available to 
     carry out this section for Interstate highway substitute, 
     National Highway System, surface transportation program, 
     Interstate, congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
     program, bridge, hazard elimination, and rail-highway 
     crossings projects.
       (b) Allocation Formula.--Funds made available to carry out 
     this section shall be allocated among the States in 
     accordance with the following table:

States:                                          Allocation Percentages
  Alabama.........................................................1.80 
  Alaska..........................................................1.20 
  Arizona.........................................................1.43 
  Arkansas........................................................1.42 
  California......................................................9.17 
  Colorado........................................................1.27 
  Connecticut.....................................................1.74 
  Delaware........................................................0.39 
  District of Columbia............................................0.52 
  Florida.........................................................4.04 
  Georgia.........................................................2.92 
  Hawaii..........................................................0.54 
  Idaho...........................................................0.70 
  Illinois........................................................3.88 
  Indiana.........................................................2.18 
  Iowa............................................................1.27 
  Kansas..........................................................1.13 
  Kentucky........................................................1.53 
  Louisiana.......................................................1.52 
  Maine...........................................................0.65 
  Maryland........................................................1.68 
  Massachusetts...................................................4.11 
  Michigan........................................................2.75 
  Minnesota.......................................................1.69 
  Mississippi.....................................................1.11 
  Missouri........................................................2.28 
  Montana.........................................................0.93 
  Nebraska........................................................0.79 
  Nevada..........................................................0.69 
  New Hampshire...................................................0.48 
  New Jersey......................................................2.86 
  New Mexico......................................................1.02 
  New York........................................................5.35 
  North Carolina..................................................2.62 
  North Dakota....................................................0.64 
  Ohio............................................................3.64 
  Oklahoma........................................................1.36 
  Oregon..........................................................1.23 
  Pennsylvania....................................................4.93 
  Rhode Island....................................................0.56 
  South Carolina..................................................1.42 
  South Dakota....................................................0.69 
  Tennessee.......................................................2.00 
  Texas...........................................................6.21 
  Utah............................................................0.73 
  Vermont.........................................................0.43 
  Virginia........................................................2.28 
  Washington......................................................2.05 
  West Virginia...................................................1.15 
  Wisconsin.......................................................1.90 
  Wyoming.........................................................0.65 
  Puerto Rico.....................................................0.46 
  Territories....................................................0.01. 

       (c) Effect of Allocations.--Funds distributed to States 
     under subsection (b) shall not affect calculations to 
     determine allocations to States under section 157 of title 
     23, United States Code, and sections 1013(c), 1015(a), and 
     1015(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
     Act of 1991.
       (d) Period of Availability.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, amounts made available to carry out this 
     section shall be available for obligation for the fiscal year 
     for which such amounts are made available plus the 3 
     succeeding fiscal years and shall be subject to the 
     provisions of title 23, United States Code. Obligation 
     limitations for Federal-aid highways and highway safety 
     construction programs established by the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and subsequent laws 
     shall apply to obligations made under this section.
       (e) Special Rule for Urbanized Areas of Over 200,000.--
       (1) General rule.--The percentage determined under 
     paragraph (2) of funds allocated to a State under this 
     section for a fiscal year shall be obligated in urbanized 
     areas of the State with an urbanized population of over 
     200,000 under section 133(d)(3) of title 23, United States 
     Code.
       (2) Percentage.--The percentage referred to in paragraph 
     (1) is the percentage determined by dividing--
       (A) the total amount of the reduction in funds which would 
     have been attributed under section 133(d)(3) of title 23, 
     United States Code, to urbanized areas of the State with an 
     urbanized population of over 200,000 for fiscal year 1996 as 
     a result of the application of section 1003(c) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; by
       (B) the total amount of the reduction in authorized funds 
     for fiscal year 1996 that would have been allocated to the 
     State, and that would have been apportioned to the State, as 
     a result of the application of such section 1003(c).
       (f) Limitation on Planning Expenditures.--One-half of 1 
     percent of amounts allocated to each State under this section 
     in any fiscal year may be available for expenditure for the 
     purpose of carrying out the requirements of section 134 of 
     title 23, United States Code (relating to transportation 
     planning). 1\1/2\ percent of the amounts allocated to each 
     State under this section in any fiscal year may be available 
     for expenditure for the purpose of carrying out activities 
     referred to in subsection (c) of section 307 of such title 
     (relating to transportation planning and research).
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated, out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than 
     the Mass Transit Account), to carry out this section 
     $360,420,595 for fiscal year 1996 and $155,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 1997.
       (h) Applicability of Chapter 1 of Title 23.--Except as 
     otherwise provided in this section, funds allocated under 
     this section shall be available for obligation in the same 
     manner and for the same purposes as if such
      funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United 
     States Code.
       (i) Territories Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``territories'' means the Virgin Islands, Guam, American 
     Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

     SEC. 204. RESCISSIONS.

       (a) Rescissions.--Effective October 1, 1995, and after any 
     necessary reductions are made under section 1003(c) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the 
     following unobligated balances available on September 30, 
     1995, 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) $798,701.04 made available by section 131(j) of the 
     Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982.
       (3) $942,249 made available for section 149(a)(66) of the 
     Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act 
     of 1987.
       (4) $88,195 made available for section 149(a)(111)(C) of 
     the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance 
     Act of 1987.
       (5) $155,174.41 made available for section 149(a)(111)(E) 
     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) $164,532 made available for section 149(a)(111)(L) of 
     the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance 
     Act of 1987.
       (9) $86,070.82 made available for section 149(a)(111)(M) of 
     the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance 
     Act of 1987.
       (10) $52,834 made available for section 149(a)(95) of the 
     Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act 
     of 1987.
       (11) $909,131 made available for section 149(a)(99) of the 
     Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act 
     of 1987.
       (12) $3,817,000 made available for section 149(a)(35) of 
     the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance 
     Act of 1987.
       (13) $797,800 made available for section 149(a)(100) of the 
     Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act 
     of 1987.
       (14) $2 made available by section 149(c)(3) of the Surface 
     Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987.
       (15) $44,706,878 made available by section 1012(b)(6) of 
     the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
       (16) $15,401,107 made available by section 1003(a)(7) of 
     the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
       (17) $1,000,000 made available by item number 38 of the 
     table contained in section 1108(b) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
       (18) $150,000,000 deducted by the Secretary under section 
     104(a) of title 23, United States Code.
       (19) $10,800,000 made available by section 5338(a)(1) of 
     title 49, United States Code.

[[Page H 9279]]

       (b) Reductions in Authorized Amounts.--
       (1) Magnetic levitation.--Section 1036(d)(1) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 
     Stat. 1986) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ``and'' after 
     ``1994,'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``, $125,000,000'' and 
     all that follows through ``1997''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``1996, and 1997'' and 
     inserting ``and 1996''.
       (2) Highway safety programs.--Section 2005(1) of such Act 
     (105 Stat. 2079) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' the first place it appears and 
     inserting a comma; and
       (B) by striking ``, 1995, 1996, and 1997'' and inserting 
     ``and 1995, and $146,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 
     and 1997''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) shall take effect on the day after the date on which 
     authorized funds for fiscal year 1996 are reduced as a result 
     of application of section 1003(c) of such Act.
       (c) Congestion Pricing Pilot Program Transfers.--After the 
     date on which authorized funds for fiscal year 1996 are 
     reduced as a result of application of section 1003(c) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the 
     amounts made available for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to 
     carry out section 1012(b) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 1938) shall 
     be available to carry out section 203 of this Act, relating 
     to the State high priority restoration program.
     SEC. 205. STATE UNOBLIGATED BALANCE FLEXIBILITY.

       (a) Reduction in Federal Funding.--
       (1) Notification of states.--On October 1, 1995, or as soon 
     as possible thereafter, the Secretary shall notify each State 
     of the total amount of the reduction in authorized funds for 
     fiscal year 1996 that would have been allocated to such 
     State, and that would have been apportioned to such State, as 
     a result of application of section 1003(c) of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
       (2) Exclusion of certain funding.--In determining the 
     amount of any reduction under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall deduct--
       (A) the amount allocated to each State in fiscal year 1996 
     to carry out section 203 of this Act, relating to the State 
     high priority project restoration program; and
       (B) any amounts made available under section 
     157(a)(4)(B)(iii) of title 23, United States Code, for fiscal 
     year 1996.
       (b) Unobligated Balance Flexibility.--Upon request of a 
     State, the Secretary shall make available to carry out 
     projects described in section 203(a) of this Act in fiscal 
     year 1996 an amount not to exceed the amount determined under 
     subsection (a) for the State. Such funds shall be made 
     available from authorized funds that were allocated or 
     apportioned to such State and were not obligated as of 
     September 30, 1995. The State shall designate on or before 
     November 1, 1995, or as soon as possible thereafter which of 
     such authorized funds are to be made available under this 
     section to carry out such projects. The Secretary shall make 
     available before November 15, 1995, or as soon as possible 
     thereafter funds designated under the preceding sentence to 
     the State.
       (c) Special Rule for Urbanized Areas of Over 200,000.--
     Funds which were apportioned to the State under section 
     104(b)(3) of title 23, United States Code, and attributed to 
     urbanized areas of a State with an urbanized population of 
     over 200,000 under section 133(d)(3) of such title may only 
     be designated by the State under subsection (b) if the 
     metropolitan planning organization designated for such area 
     concurs, in writing, with such designation.
       (d) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Balances.--States 
     may designate under subsection (b) funds apportioned under 
     section 104(b)(2) of title 23, United States Code, and not 
     obligated as of September 30, 1995, to carry out projects 
     described in section 203(a) of this Act only if such funds 
     will be obligated in areas described in section 104(b)(2) of 
     such title or, in the case of a State which does not include 
     such an area, the funds may be obligated in any area of the 
     State.
       (e) Interstate Construction Balances.--A State may not 
     designate under subsection (b) any more than \1/3\ of funds 
     apportioned or allocated to the State for Interstate 
     construction and not obligated as of September 30, 1995.
       (f) Period of Availability.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, amounts designated under subsection (b) 
     shall be available for obligation for the same period for 
     which such amounts were originally made available for 
     obligation and shall be subject to the provisions of title 
     23, United States Code. Obligation limitations for Federal-
     aid highways and highway safety construction programs 
     established by the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 and subsequent laws shall apply to 
     obligations made under this section.
       (g) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to affect calculations to 
     determine allocations to States under section 157 of title 
     23, United States Code, and sections 1013(c), 1015(a), and 
     1015(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
     Act of 1991.
       (h) State.--In this section and section 203, the term 
     ``State'' has the meaning such term has under section 401 of 
     title 23, United States Code.

     SEC. 206. MINIMUM ALLOCATION.

       (a) Formula.--Section 157(a)(4) of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``In fiscal'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--In fiscal'';
       (2) by inserting ``funds authorized to be appropriated by 
     subsection (f)'' after ``shall allocate'';
       (3) by moving subparagraph (A), as designated by paragraph 
     (1) of this subsection, 2 ems to the right; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Additional allocation.--If the aggregate amount 
     allocated to the States under subparagraph (A) after 
     application of section 1003(c) the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 for any fiscal year 
     beginning after September 30, 1995, is less than the amount 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section for 
     such fiscal year, then the excess of such authorized amount 
     shall be allocated as follows:
       ``(i) The Secretary shall first allocate to each State such 
     amount as may be necessary to increase the allocation under 
     subparagraph (A) to the amount that would have been allocated 
     to the State for such fiscal year if the full amount of the 
     funds authorized to be appropriated for such fiscal year by 
     such Act out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass 
     Transit Account) were appropriated without regard to such 
     section 1003(c).
       ``(ii) If any of such excess remains after the allocation 
     under clause (i), the Secretary shall allocate to each State 
     such amount as may be necessary so that the amount authorized 
     to be appropriated for such fiscal year for each project to 
     be carried out in such State under sections 1103 through 1108 
     of such Act without regard to section 1003(c) of such Act is 
     available for the project.
       ``(iii) The Secretary shall allocate among the States any 
     excess remaining after the allocations under clauses (i) and 
     (ii) so that each State is allocated the following 
     percentages of the remaining excess:

    ``States:                                              Percentages 
      Alabama.....................................................1.80 
      Alaska......................................................1.20 
      Arizona.....................................................1.43 
      Arkansas....................................................1.42 
      California..................................................9.17 
      Colorado....................................................1.27 
      Connecticut.................................................1.74 
      Delaware....................................................0.39 
      District of Columbia........................................0.52 
      Florida.....................................................4.04 
      Georgia.....................................................2.92 
      Hawaii......................................................0.54 
      Idaho.......................................................0.70 
      Illinois....................................................3.88 
      Indiana.....................................................2.18 
      Iowa........................................................1.27 
      Kansas......................................................1.13 
      Kentucky....................................................1.53 
      Louisiana...................................................1.52 
      Maine.......................................................0.65 
      Maryland....................................................1.68 
      Massachusetts...............................................4.11 
      Michigan....................................................2.75 
      Minnesota...................................................1.69 
      Mississippi.................................................1.11 
      Missouri....................................................2.28 
      Montana.....................................................0.93 
      Nebraska....................................................0.79 
      Nevada......................................................0.69 
      New Hampshire...............................................0.48 
      New Jersey..................................................2.86 
      New Mexico..................................................1.02 
      New York....................................................5.35 
      North Carolina..............................................2.62 
      North Dakota................................................0.64 
      Ohio........................................................3.64 
      Oklahoma....................................................1.36 
      Oregon......................................................1.23 
      Pennsylvania................................................4.93 
      Rhode Island................................................0.56 
      South Carolina..............................................1.42 
      South Dakota................................................0.69 
      Tennessee...................................................2.00 
      Texas.......................................................6.21 
      Utah........................................................0.73 
      Vermont.....................................................0.43 
      Virginia....................................................2.28 
      Washington..................................................2.05 
      West Virginia...............................................1.15 
      Wisconsin...................................................1.90 
      Wyoming.....................................................0.65 
      Puerto Rico.................................................0.46 
      Territories................................................0.01. 

       ``(C) Territories defined.--In this paragraph, the term 
     `territories' means the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 
     and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.''.
       (b) Special Rule for Urbanized Areas of Over 200,000 in 
     Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997.--Section 157 of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsection 
     (e) and (f), respectively, and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Special Rule for Urbanized Areas of Over 200,000 in 
     Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997.--
       ``(1) General rule.--The percentage determined under 
     paragraph (2) of funds allocated to a State under subsection 
     (a)(4)(B)(iii) for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997 shall 
     be obligated in urbanized areas of the State with an 
     urbanized population of over 200,000 under section 133(d)(3).
       ``(2) Percentage.--The percentage referred to in paragraph 
     (1) is the percentage determined by dividing--
       ``(A) the total amount of the reduction in funds which 
     would have been attributed under section 133(d)(3) to 
     urbanized areas of 

[[Page H 9280]]
     the State with an urbanized population of over 200,000 for fiscal year 
     1996 as a result of the application of section 1003(c) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; by
       ``(B) the total amount of the reduction in authorized funds 
     for fiscal year 1996 that would have been allocated to the 
     State, and that would have been apportioned to the State, as 
     a result of the application of such section 1003(c).''.
       (c) Funding.--Section 157(f) of such title, as redesignated 
     by subsection (b), is amended by inserting before the period 
     the following: ``and before October 1, 1995, $1,101,000,000 
     for fiscal year 1996, $1,378,000,000 for fiscal year 1997''.
     SEC. 207. RELIEF FROM MANDATES.

       (a) Management Systems.--The Secretary shall not take any 
     action pursuant to or enforce the provisions of section 
     303(c) of title 23, United States Code, with respect to any 
     State during fiscal year 1996.
       (b) Asphalt Pavement Containing Recycled Rubber.--Section 
     1038 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
     of 1991 (105 Stat. 1987-1990) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (d); and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (d).

     SEC. 208. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Authorized funds.--The term ``authorized funds'' means 
     funds authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust 
     Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) to carry out title 
     23, United States Code (other than sections 402 and 410) and 
     the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
     and subject to an obligation limitation.
       (2) Urbanized area.--The term ``urbanized area'' has the 
     meaning such term has under section 101(a) of title 23, 
     United States Code.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:
                  TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSIT OPERATING ASSISTANCE 
                   LIMITATION.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any limitation otherwise 
     imposed on operating assistance under section 5307 of title 
     49, United States Code, the Secretary shall distribute such 
     limitation so that each urbanized area (as such term is 
     defined under section 5302 of such title) that had a 
     population under the 1990 decennial census of the United 
     States of less than 200,000 will receive, under the 
     distribution of such limitation for fiscal year 1996, 75 
     percent of the amount the area received under the 
     distribution of such limitation for fiscal year 1995.
       (b) Consideration.--In the distribution of the limitation 
     referred to in subsection (a) to urbanized areas that had a 
     population under the 1990 decennial census of 1,000,000 or 
     more, the Secretary shall direct each such area to give 
     priority consideration to the impact of reductions in 
     operating assistance on smaller transit authorities operating 
     within the area and to consider the needs and resources of 
     such transit authorities when the limitation is distributed 
     among all transit authorities operating in the area.

     SEC. 302. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HIGH COST FEDERAL-AID PROJECTS.

       (a) Requirements.--The Secretary shall require each 
     recipient of Federal financial assistance for a highway or 
     transit project with an estimated total cost of 
     $1,000,000,000 or more to submit to the Secretary an annual 
     financial plan. Such plan shall be based on detailed annual 
     estimates of the cost to complete the remaining elements of 
     the project and on reasonable assumptions, as determined by 
     the Secretary, of future increases in the cost to complete 
     the project.
       (b) Recommendations on Withholding of Assistance.--As part 
     of an annual report to be submitted under subsection (c), the 
     Secretary shall make a recommendation to Congress on whether 
     or not future Federal assistance should be withheld with 
     respect to any project described in subsection (a) for which 
     an annual financial plan is not submitted under subsection 
     (a) or for which the Secretary determines that the estimates 
     or assumptions referred to in subsection (a) are not 
     reasonable.
       (c) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress an 
     annual report on the financial plans submitted to the 
     Secretary under this section, and any recommendation made by 
     the Secretary under subsection (b), in the preceding fiscal 
     year.
     SEC. 303. LETTERS OF INTENT AND FULL FINANCING GRANT AND 
                   EARLY SYSTEMS WORK AGREEMENTS.

       Section 5309(g) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by indenting and dropping paragraph (1) down 1 line;
       (2) by moving all the paragraphs, subparagraphs, and 
     clauses of such section 2 ems to the right;
       (3) by inserting after ``(1)'' the first place it appears 
     the following: ``Letters of intent.--'';
       (4) in paragraph (1)(B) by striking ``Public Works and 
     Transportation'' and inserting ``Transportation and 
     Infrastructure'';
       (5) by inserting after (2) the first place it appears 
     ``Full financing grant agreements.--'';
       (6) by inserting after (3) the first place it appears 
     ``Early system work agreements.--'';
       (7) by inserting after (4) the first place it appears 
     ``Total estimated future obligations and contingent 
     commitments.--''; and
       (8) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Preauthorization of full federal financial 
     responsibility.--
       ``(A) In general.--After the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph and before the date on which Federal-aid highway 
     and transit programs are reauthorized, the Secretary of 
     Transportation may not issue a letter of intent, or enter 
     into a full financing grant agreement or early systems work 
     agreement, under this section for a project or operable 
     segment of a project unless the full amount of Federal 
     financial responsibility for the project or operable segment 
     of a project has been included in an authorization law.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The prohibition on entering into a full 
     financing grant agreement under this paragraph shall not 
     apply--
       ``(i) to any project for which a letter of intent was 
     issued before the date of the enactment of this paragraph; 
     and
       ``(ii) to any project included as an element of an 
     interrelated project which also includes another project for 
     which a letter of intent was issued before such date of 
     enactment.''.
     SEC. 304. REPORT ON CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR FIXED GUIDEWAY 
                   SYSTEMS AND EXTENSIONS TO EXISTING FIXED 
                   GUIDEWAY SYSTEMS.

       Section 5309(m) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by indenting and dropping paragraph (1) down 1 line;
       (2) by moving all the paragraphs and subparagraphs of such 
     section 2 ems to the right;
       (3) by inserting ``Percentages.--'' after ``(1)'' the first 
     place it appears;
       (4) by inserting ``Nonurbanized area allocation.--'' after 
     ``(2)'' the first place it appears;
       (5) by inserting ``Reports.--'' after ``(3)'' the first 
     place it appears;
       (6) in paragraph (3) by striking ``Public Works and 
     Transportation'' and inserting ``Transportation and 
     Infrastructure'';
       (7) in paragraph (3) by striking ``a proposal on the 
     allocation'' and inserting ``a report on the proposed 
     allocation'';
       (8) in paragraph (3) by adding at the end the following:
     ``Such report shall include for each such capital project the 
     following:
       ``(A) An analysis of the potential funding requirements of 
     the project under paragraph (1)(B) in the succeeding 5 fiscal 
     years.
       ``(B) A description of the planning and study process 
     undertaken to select the locally preferred alternative for 
     the project.
       ``(C) A description of efforts undertaken to seek 
     alternative funding sources for the project.''; and
       (9) by inserting ``Multiple allocations.--'' after ``(4)'' 
     the first place it appears.

     SEC. 305. REPEAL AND MODIFICATION 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 amended by striking 
     ``$618,000,000'' and inserting ``$541,100,000''.
     SEC. 306. MISCELLANEOUS TRANSIT PROJECTS.

       (a) 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,''.
       (b) 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''.
       (c) 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''.
       (d) Central Area Circulator Project.--Section 3035(e) of 
     such Act is amended by striking the last sentence which 
     begins ``Such amount''.
       (e) 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,''.
       (f) Los Angeles-San Diego Rail Corridor Improvement 
     Project.--Section 3035(g) of such Act is amended by striking 
     ``not less than'' the 1st place it appears and all that 
     follows through ``1994'' and inserting ``$20,000,000''.
       (g) San Jose-Gilroy-Hollister Commuter Rail Project.--
     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,''.
       (h) 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 
     5328(c)(1)(G) of title 49, United States Code,''; and
       (D) by striking ``of such elements'' and inserting 
     ``element of such program of interrelated projects''.

[[Page H 9281]]

       (2) Program of interrelated projects.--Section 
     5328(c)(1)(G) of title 49, United States
      Code, is amended by striking ``Camp Wisdom'' and inserting 
     ``Interstate Route 20, L.B.J. Freeway''.
       (i) 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''.
       (j) Downtown Orlando Circulator Project.--Section 3035(l) 
     of such Act is amended--
       (1) by striking the subsection heading and inserting 
     ``Downtown Orlando Circulator Project'';
       (2) by striking ``No later than April 30, 1992, the'' and 
     inserting ``The'';
       (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.''.
       (k) 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''.
       (l) Lakewood-Freehold-Matawan or James- burg 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''.
       (m) 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''.
       (n) San Diego Mid Coast Fixed Guideway Project.--Section 
     3035(u) of such Act is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Mid Coast Light 
     Rail Project'' and inserting ``Metropolitan Transit 
     Improvement Program'';
       (2) by striking ``No later than April 30, 1992, the'' and 
     inserting ``The''; and
       (3) by striking ``, $2,000,000'' and all that follows 
     through the period and inserting ``$27,000,000 for the 
     integrated project financing of the San Diego Mid Coast and 
     Mission Valley East Corridor fixed guideway projects.''.
       (o) Eureka Springs, Arkansas.--Section 3035(z) of such Act 
     is amended by striking the text and inserting the following: 
     ``From funds made available under section 5309(m)(1)(C) of 
     title 49, United States Code, 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.''.
       (p) Baltimore-Washington Transportation Improvements 
     Program.--Section 3035(nn) of such Act is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``as follows:'' and all 
     that follows through ``1994.'' and inserting ``and shall be 
     $60,000,000.'';
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``as follows:'' and all 
     that follows through the period at the end of subparagraph 
     (C) and inserting ``and shall total $160,000,000.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3) by striking ``for fiscal year 1993''.
       (q) 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''; and
       (2) by striking ``the completion'' and all that follows 
     through ``engineering for''.
       (r) 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 made available under section 5309(m)(1)(B) of title 49, 
     United States Code, the Secretary shall make available 
     $300,000,000 for the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit 
     Project.''.
       (s) 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''.
       (t) Additional Transit Projects.--
       (1) Canton-akron-cleveland commuter rail.--From funds made 
     available under section 5309(m)(1)(B) of title 49, United 
     States Code, the Secretary shall make available $6,500,000 
     for the Canton-Akron-Cleveland Commuter Rail project.
       (2) Cincinnati northeast/northern kentucky rail.--From 
     funds made available under such section, the Secretary shall 
     make available $2,000,000 for the Cincinnati Northeast/
     Northern Kentucky Rail project.
       (3) DART north central light rail extension.--From funds 
     made available under such section, the Secretary shall make 
     available $2,500,000 for the DART North Central Light Rail 
     Extension project.
       (4) Dallas-fort worth railtran.--From funds made available 
     under such section, the Secretary shall make available 
     $5,000,000 for the Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project.
       (5) Florida tri-county commuter rail.--From funds made 
     available under such section, the Secretary shall make 
     available $10,000,000 for the Florida Tri-County Commuter 
     Rail project.
       (6) Miami-north 27th avenue.--From funds made available 
     under such section, the Secretary shall make available 
     $2,000,000 for the Miami-North 27th Avenue project.
       (7) Memphis, tennessee, regional rail plan.--From funds 
     made available under such section, the Secretary shall make 
     available $2,500,000 for the Memphis, Tennessee, Regional 
     Rail Plan project.
       (8) New orleans canal street corridor.--From funds made 
     available under such section, the Secretary shall make 
     available $10,000,000 for the New Orleans Canal Street 
     Corridor project.
       (9) Orange county transitway.--From funds made available 
     under such section, the Secretary shall make available 
     $5,000,000 for the Orange County Transitway project.
       (10) Whitehall ferry terminal, new york, new york.--From 
     funds made available under such section, the Secretary shall 
     make available $5,000,000 for the Whitehall Ferry Terminal 
     project.
       (11) Wisconsin central commuter.--From funds made available 
     under such section, the Secretary shall make available 
     $14,400,000 for the Wisconsin Central Commuter project.
       (12) San juan, puerto rico, tren urbano.--From funds made 
     available under such section, the Secretary shall make 
     available $15,000,000 for the San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren 
     Urbano project.
       (13) Tampa to lakeland commuter rail.--From funds made 
     available under such section, the Secretary shall make 
     available $1,000,000 for the Tampa to Lakeland Commuter Rail 
     project.

     SEC. 307. METROPOLITAN PLANNING FOR TRANSIT PROJECTS.

       Section 5303(b) of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(16) recreational travel and tourism.''.

     SEC. 308. CONTRACTING FOR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES.

       Section 5325 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Special Rules for Engineering and Design Contracts.--
       ``(1) Performance and audits.--Any contract or subcontract 
     awarded in accordance with subsection (d), 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.
       ``(2) Indirect cost rates.--Instead of performing its own 
     audits, a recipient of funds under a contract or subcontract 
     awarded in accordance with subsection (d) shall accept 
     indirect cost rates established in accordance with the 
     Federal acquisition regulations for 1-year applicable 
     accounting periods by a cognizant Federal or State government 
     agency, 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 of any kind. A recipient 
     of such funds requesting or using the cost and rate data 
     described in this paragraph 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 another firm or to any government agency which is not part 
     of the group of agencies sharing cost data under this 
     paragraph, except by written permission of the audited firm. 
     If prohibited by law, such cost and rate data shall not be 
     disclosed under any circumstances.
       ``(3) State option.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall take 
     effect 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection 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 paragraphs shall not apply with respect to 
     such State.''.
     SEC. 309. FERRY BOATS AND TERMINAL FACILITIES.

       Section 129(c)(5) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting before the period at the end of the first 
     sentence the following: ``or between a point in a State and a 
     point in the Dominion of Canada''; and
       (2) in the second sentence by inserting after ``Puerto 
     Rico'' the following: ``, between a point in a State and a 
     point in the Dominion of Canada,''.

     SEC. 310. UTILIZATION OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR FOR SURVEYING AND 
                   MAPPING SERVICES.

       Section 306 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``In''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Guidance.--The Secretary shall issue guidance to 
     encourage States to utilize, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, private sector sources for surveying and mapping 
     services for highway projects under this title. In carrying 
     out this subsection, the Secretary shall determine 
     appropriate roles for State and private mapping and surveying 
     activities, including--
       ``(1) preparation of standards and specifications;
       ``(2) research in surveying and mapping instrumentation and 
     procedures and technology transfer to the private sector;
       ``(3) providing technical guidance, coordination, and 
     administration of State surveying and mapping activities; and
       ``(4) establishing a schedule with quantifiable goals for 
     increasing the use by the States of private sector sources 
     for surveying and mapping activities.''.

     SEC. 311. FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Transit Security Systems.--Section 5307(d)(1)(J)(i) of 
     title 49, United States Code, 

[[Page H 9282]]
     is amended by inserting before ``and any other'' the following: 
     ``employing law enforcement or security personnel in areas 
     within or adjacent to such systems,''.
       (b) Ferryboat Operations.--For purposes of calculating 
     apportionments under section 5336 of title 49, United States 
     Code, for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1995, 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 5336(b)(2)(A) and 5335 
     of such title.

     SEC. 312. ACCESSIBILITY OF OVER-THE-ROAD BUSES TO INDIVIDUALS 
                   WITH DISABILITIES.

       Section 306(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Americans With 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12186(a)(2)(B)(iii)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subclause (I) by striking ``7 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``3 years after 
     the date of issuance of final regulations under subparagraph 
     (B)(ii)''; and
       (2) in subclause (II) by striking ``6 years after such date 
     of enactment'' and inserting ``2 years after the date of 
     issuance of such final regulations''.

     SEC. 313. ALASKA RAILROAD.

       Section 5337(a)(3)(B) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``The Alaska 
     Railroad is eligible for assistance under this subparagraph 
     with respect to improvements to its passenger operations.''.

     SEC. 314. ALCOHOL AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES TESTING.

       (a) Mass Transit Testing.--Section 5331(b)(1)(A) of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Testing Program for Mass Transportation Employees.--
     (1)(A) In the interest of mass transportation safety, the 
     Secretary shall prescribe regulations that establish a 
     program requiring mass transportation operations that receive 
     financial assistance under section 5307, 5309, or 5311 of 
     this title or section 103(e)(4) of title 23 to conduct 
     preemployment, reasonable suspicion, random, and post-
     accident testing of mass transportation employees responsible 
     for safety-sensitive functions (as decided by the Secretary) 
     for the use of a controlled substance in violation of law or 
     a United States Government regulation, and to conduct 
     reasonable suspicion, random, and post-accident testing of 
     such employees for the use of alcohol in violation of law or 
     a United States Government regulation. The regulations shall 
     permit such operations to conduct preemployment testing of 
     such employees for the use of alcohol.''.
       (b) Railroad Testing.--Section 20140(b)(1)(A) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) a railroad carrier to conduct preemployment, 
     reasonable suspicion, random, and post-accident testing of 
     all railroad employees responsible for safety-sensitive 
     functions (as decided by the Secretary) for the use of a 
     controlled substance in violation of law or a United States 
     Government regulation, and to conduct reasonable suspicion, 
     random, and post-accident testing of such employees for the 
     use of alcohol in violation of law or a United States 
     Government regulation; the regulations shall permit such 
     railroad carriers to conduct preemployment testing of such 
     employees for the use of alcohol; and''.
       (c) Motor Carrier Testing.--Section 31306(b)(1)(A) of such 
     title is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Testing Program for Operators of Commercial Motor 
     Vehicles.--(1)(A) In the interest of commercial motor vehicle 
     safety, the Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe 
     regulations that establish a program requiring motor carriers 
     to conduct preemployment, reasonable suspicion, random, and 
     post-accident testing of operators of commercial motor 
     vehicles for the use of controlled substance in violation of 
     law or a United States Government regulation and to conduct 
     reasonable suspicion, random, and post-accident testing of 
     such operators for the use of alcohol in violation of law or 
     a United States Government regulation. The regulations shall 
     permit such motor carriers to conduct preemployment testing 
     of such employees for the use of alcohol.''.
       (d) Aviation Testing.--
       (1) Program for employees of air carriers and foreign air 
     carriers.--Section 45102(a)(1) of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Program for Employees of Air Carriers and Foreign Air 
     Carriers.--(1) In the interest of aviation safety, the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall 
     prescribe regulations that establish a program requiring air 
     carriers and foreign air carriers to conduct preemployment, 
     reasonable suspicion, random, and post-accident testing of 
     airmen, crewmembers, airport security screening contract 
     personnel, and other air carrier employees responsible for 
     safety-sensitive functions (as decided by the Administrator) 
     for the use of a controlled substance in violation of law or 
     a United States Government regulation; and to conduct 
     reasonable suspicion, random, and post-accident testing of 
     airmen, crewmembers, airport security screening contract 
     personnel, and other air carrier employees responsible for 
     safety-sensitive functions (as decided by the Administrator) 
     for the use of alcohol in violation of law or a United States 
     Government regulation. The regulations shall permit air 
     carriers and foreign air carriers to conduct preemployment 
     testing of airmen, crewmembers, airport security screening 
     contract personnel, and other air carrier employees 
     responsible for safety-sensitive functions (as decided by the 
     Administrator) for the use of alcohol.''.
       (2) Program for employees of the federal aviation 
     administration.--Section 45102(b)(1) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Program for Employees of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration.--(1) The Administrator shall establish a 
     program of preemployment, reasonable suspicion, random, and 
     post-accident testing for the use of a controlled substance 
     in violation of law or a United States Government regulation 
     for employees of the Administration whose duties include 
     responsibility for safety-sensitive functions and shall 
     establish a program of reasonable suspicion, random and post-
     accident testing for the use of alcohol in violation of law 
     or a United States Government regulation for such employees. 
     The Administrator may establish a program of preemployment 
     testing for the use of alcohol for such employees.''.

     SEC. 315. ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING COUNTERMEASURES.

       (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) of such title 
     is further amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(3)''; and
       (B) 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.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Any individual under age 21 with a blood alcohol 
     concentration of 0.02 percent or greater when driving a motor 
     vehicle shall be deemed to be driving while intoxicated.''.
       (c) Supplemental Grants.--Section 410(f) of such title is 
     amended by striking paragraph (1) and redesignating 
     paragraphs (2) through (7) as paragraphs (1) through (6), 
     respectively.

     SEC. 316. SAFETY RESEARCH INITIATIVES.

       (a) Older Drivers and Other Special Driver Groups.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of 
     technologies and practices to improve the driving performance 
     of older drivers and other special driver groups.
       (2) Demonstration activities.--In conducting the study 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall undertake 
     demonstration activities which incorporate and build upon 
     gerontology research related to the study of the normal aging 
     process. The Secretary shall initially implement such 
     activities in those States which have the highest population 
     of aging citizens for whom driving a motor vehicle is their 
     primary mobility mode.
       (3) Cooperative agreement.--The Secretary shall carry out 
     the study under paragraph (1) by entering into a cooperative 
     agreement with an institution that has demonstrated 
     competencies in gerontological research, population 
     demographics, human factors related to transportation, and 
     advanced technology applied to transportation.
       (b) Work Zone Safety.--In carrying out the work zone safety 
     program under section 1051 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Secretary shall 
     utilize a variety of methods to increase safety at highway 
     construction sites, including each of the following:
       (1) Conferences to explore new techniques and stimulate 
     dialogue for improving work zone safety.
       (2) Creation of a national clearinghouse to assemble and 
     disseminate, by electronic and other means, information 
     relating to the improvement of work zone safety.
       (3) A national promotional campaign in cooperation with the 
     States to provide timely, site-specific information to 
     motorists when construction workers are actually present.
       (c) Radio and Microwave Technology for Motor Vehicle Safety 
     Warning System.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to develop 
     and evaluate radio and microwave technology for a motor 
     vehicle safety warning system in furtherance of safety in all 
     types of motor vehicles.
       (2) Equipment.--Equipment developed under the study to be 
     conducted under subsection (a) shall be directed toward, but 
     not limited to, advance warning to operators of all types of 
     motor vehicles of--
       (A) temporary obstructions in a highway;
       (B) poor visibility and highway surface conditions caused 
     by adverse weather; and
       (C) movement of emergency vehicles.

[[Page H 9283]]

       (3) Safety applications.--In conducting the study under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall determine whether the 
     technology described in this subsection has other appropriate 
     safety applications.

     SEC. 317. PUBLIC TRANSIT VEHICLES EXEMPTION.

       Section 1023(h)(1) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 127 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2-year'' the first place it appears and 
     all that follows through ``Act,'' and inserting ``period 
     beginning on October 6, 1992, and ending on the date on which 
     Federal-aid highway and transit programs are reauthorized 
     after the date of the enactment of the National Highway 
     System Designation Act of 1995,''; and
       (2) by striking the second sentence.

     SEC. 318. CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Areas Eligible for Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The first sentence of section 149(b) of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``if the project or program is for an area 
     in the State that was designated as a nonattainment area 
     under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)) 
     during any part of fiscal year 1994 and'' after ``program'' 
     the 2nd place it appears; and
       (B) in paragraph (1)(A) by striking ``contribute'' and all 
     that follows through ``; or'' and inserting the following: 
     ``contribute to--
       ``(i) the attainment of a national ambient air quality 
     standard; or
       ``(ii) the maintenance of a national ambient air quality 
     standard in an area that was designated as a nonattainment 
     area but that was later redesignated by the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency as an attainment area 
     under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7407(d)); or''.
       (2) Apportionment.--Section 104(b)(2) of title 23, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in the second sentence, by striking ``is a 
     nonattainment area (as defined in the Clean Air Act) for 
     ozone'' and inserting ``was a nonattainment area (as defined 
     in section 171(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7501(2))) 
     for ozone during any part of fiscal year 1994''; and
       (B) in the third sentence--
       (i) by striking ``is also'' and inserting ``was also''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``during any part of fiscal year 1994'' 
     after ``monoxide''.
       (b) Effect of Limitation on Apportionment.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, for each of fiscal years 1996 and 
     1997, any limitation under an amendment made by this section 
     on an apportionment of funds otherwise authorized under 
     section 1003(a)(4) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 1919) shall not affect any 
     hold harmless
      apportionment adjustment under section 1015(a) of such Act 
     (105 Stat. 1943).

     SEC. 319. 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 
     with an estimated total cost of $25,000,000 or more.
       ``(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.--Such section is further 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 with an 
     estimated total cost of $25,000,000 or more.
       ``(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.''.

     SEC. 320. APPLICABILITY OF TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Highway Construction.--Section 109(j) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``plan for the 
     implementation of any ambient air quality standard for any 
     air quality control region designated pursuant to the Clean 
     Air Act, as amended.'' and inserting the following: ``plan 
     for--
       ``(1) the implementation of a national ambient air quality 
     standard for which an area is designated as a nonattainment 
     area under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7407(d)); or
       ``(2) the maintenance of a national ambient air quality 
     standard in an area that was designated as a nonattainment 
     area but that was later redesignated by the Administrator as 
     an attainment area for the standard and that is required to 
     develop a maintenance plan under section 175A of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7505a).''.
       (b) Clean Air Act Requirements.--Section 176(c) of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(5) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply only with 
     respect to--
       ``(A) a nonattainment area and each specific pollutant for 
     which the area is designated as a nonattainment area; and
       ``(B) an area that was designated as a nonattainment area 
     but that was later redesignated by the Administrator as an 
     attainment area and that is required to develop a maintenance 
     plan under section 175A with respect to the specific 
     pollutant for which the area was designated nonattainment.''.

     SEC. 321. QUALITY THROUGH COMPETITION.

       (a) Contracting for Engineering and Design Services.--
     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 Federal or State government 
     agency, 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 of any kind. 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 another 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. 322. APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN VEHICLE WEIGHT LIMITATIONS 
                   IN WISCONSIN.

       Section 127 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(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), the 
     single axle weight, tandem axle weight, gross vehicle weight, 
     and bridge formula limits set forth in subsection (a) shall 
     not apply to the 104-mile portion with respect to the 
     operation of any vehicle that could legally operate on the 
     104-mile portion before the date of enactment of this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 323. 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, chapter 48), 
     shall be treated as if the 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 in 
     accordance with section 129(a)(6) of the title.
     SEC. 324. METRIC REQUIREMENTS AND SIGNS.

       (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.

[[Page H 9284]]

       (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 speed limit, 
     distance, or measurement using the metric system.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section, 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. 325. ISTEA TECHNICAL CLARIFICATION.

       Section 131(s) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking the period at the end of the first sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``; except that nothing in this 
     subsection or section 1047 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 shall restrict, or 
     otherwise be applied by the Secretary to affect, the 
     authority of a State under subsection (d) of this section 
     with respect to commercial or industrial areas or the 
     authority of a State under subsection (k) of this section to 
     establish standards imposing stricter limitations than those 
     established in this subsection.''.

     SEC. 326. METROPOLITAN PLANNING FOR HIGHWAY PROJECTS.

       Section 134(f) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(16) Recreational travel and tourism.''.

     SEC. 327. NON-FEDERAL SHARE FOR CERTAIN TOLL BRIDGE PROJECTS.

       Section 144(l) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``Any non-Federal funds 
     expended for the seismic retrofit of the bridge may be 
     credited toward the non-Federal share required as a condition 
     of receipt of any Federal funds for seismic retrofit of the 
     bridge made available after the date of the expenditure.''.

     SEC. 328. DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION AS EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN 
                   REPORTS AND SURVEYS.

       Section 409 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``or collected'' after ``compiled''.

     SEC. 329. NATIONAL RECREATIONAL TRAILS.

       (a) State Eligibility.--Section 1302(c) of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency 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) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) contracting for services with other land management 
     agencies; and''.
       (c) Environmental Mitigation.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1302(e) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1261(e)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), (7), and (8) as 
     paragraphs (6), (7), (8), and (9), respectively; and
       (B) 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.--'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(7) Exclusions.--
       ``(A) Small state.--'';
       (2) by moving the text of subparagraph (A), as designated 
     by paragraph (1), 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) Advisory Committee.--Section 1303(b) of such Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1262(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``11 members'' and inserting ``12 
     members'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as 
     paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) 1 member appointed by the Secretary representing 
     individuals with disabilities;''.

     SEC. 330. IDENTIFICATION OF HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
       ``(5)(A) I-73/74 North-South Corridor from Charleston, 
     South Carolina, through Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to 
     Portsmouth, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, to termini at Detroit, 
     Michigan and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The Sault Ste. Marie 
     terminus shall be reached via a corridor connecting Adrian, 
     Jackson, Lansing, Mount Pleasant, and Grayling, Michigan.
       ``(B)(i) In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Corridor 
     shall generally follow--
       ``(I) United States Route 220 from the Virginia-North 
     Carolina border to I-581 south of Roanoke;
       ``(II) I-581 to I-81 in the vicinity of Roanoke;
       ``(III) I-81 to the proposed highway to demonstrate 
     intelligent transportation systems authorized by item 29 of 
     the table in section 1107(b) in the vicinity of 
     Christiansburg to United States Route 460 in the vicinity of 
     Blacksburg; and
       ``(IV) United States Route 460 to the West Virginia State 
     line.
       ``(ii) In the States of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio, 
     the Corridor shall generally follow--
       ``(I) United States Route 460 from the West Virginia State 
     line to United States Route 52 at Bluefield, West Virginia; 
     and
       ``(II) United States Route 52 to United States Route 23 at 
     Portsmouth, Ohio.
       ``(iii) In the States of North Carolina and South Carolina, 
     the Corridor shall generally follow--
       ``(I) in the case of I-73--
       ``(aa) United States Route 220 from the Virginia State line 
     to State Route 68 in the vicinity of Greensboro;
       ``(bb) State Route 68 to I-40;
       ``(cc) I-40 to United States Route 220 in Greensboro;
       ``(dd) United States Route 220 to United States Route 1 
     near Rockingham;
       ``(ee) United States Route 1 to the South Carolina State 
     line; and
       ``(ff) South Carolina State line to Charleston, South 
     Carolina; and
       ``(II) in the case of I-74--
       ``(aa) I-77 from Bluefield, West Virginia, to the junction 
     of I-77 and the United States Route 52 connector in Surry 
     County, North Carolina;
       ``(bb) the I-77/United States Route 52 connector to United 
     States Route 52 south of Mount Airy, North Carolina;
       ``(cc) United States Route 52 to United States Route 311 in 
     Winston-Salem, North Carolina;
       ``(dd) United States Route 311 to United States Route 220 
     in the vicinity of Randleman, North Carolina.
       ``(ee) United States Route 220 to United States Route 74 
     near Rockingham;
       ``(ff) United States Route 74 to United States Route 76 
     near Whiteville;
       ``(gg) United States Route 74/76 to the South Carolina 
     State line in Brunswick County; and
       ``(hh) South Carolina State line to Charleston, South 
     Carolina.'';
       (2) in paragraph (18)--
       (A) by striking ``and'';
       (B) by inserting ``Arkansas,'' after ``Tennessee,''; and
       (C) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at the 
     border between the United States and Mexico'';
       (3) by inserting before the period at the end of paragraph 
     (20) the following: ``, and to include the Corpus Christi 
     Northside Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing 
     intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 
     37 to United States Route 181''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(22) The Alameda Transportation Corridor along Alameda 
     Street from the entrance to the ports of Los Angeles and Long 
     Beach to Interstate 10, Los Angeles, California.
       ``(23) The Interstate Route 35 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, 
     through Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to Wichita, Kansas, to 
     Kansas City, Kansas/Missouri, to Des Moines, Iowa, 

[[Page H 9285]]
     to Minneapolis, Minnesota, to Duluth, Minnesota.
       ``(24) The Dalton Highway from Deadhorse, Alaska to 
     Fairbanks, Alaska.
       ``(25) State Route 168 (South Battlefield Boulevard), 
     Virginia, from the Great Bridge Bypass to the North Carolina 
     State line.
       ``(26) The CANNAMEX CORRIDOR from Nogales, Arizona, through 
     Las Vegas, Nevada, to Salt Lake City, Utah, to Idaho Falls, 
     Idaho, to Great Falls, Montana, to the Canadian Border as 
     follows:
       ``(A) In the State of Arizona, the CANAMEX CORRIDOR shall 
     generally follow--
       ``(i) I-19 from Nogales to Tucson;
       ``(ii) I-10 from Tucson to Phoenix; and
       ``(iii) United States Route 93 from Phoenix to the Nevada 
     Border.
       ``(B) In the State of Nevada, the CANAMEX CORRIDOR shall 
     follow--
       ``(i) United States Route 93 from the Arizona Border to Las 
     Vegas; and
       ``(ii) I-15 from Las Vegas to the Utah Border.
       ``(C) From the Utah Border to the Canadian Border, the 
     CANAMEX CORRIDOR shall follow I-15.''.
       (b) Inclusion of Certain Route Segments on Interstate 
     System.--Section 1105(e) of such Act (105 Stat. 2033) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Inclusion of certain route segments on interstate 
     system.--Where not a part of the Interstate System, the 
     routes referred to in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of 
     subsection (c)(5)(B) (other than the portion located in the 
     State of West Virginia), in subsection (c)(9), and in 
     subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) are hereby designated future 
     parts of the Interstate System. Any segment of such routes 
     shall become a part of the Interstate System at such time as 
     the Secretary determines that the segment--
       ``(A) meets the Interstate System design standards approved 
     by the Secretary under section 109(b) of title 23, United 
     States Code; and
       ``(B) connects to an existing Interstate System segment and 
     functions as a safe and usable segment.''.

     SEC. 331. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

       (a) Evacuation Routes for Louisiana Coastal Areas.--Section 
     1105(e)(2) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2033) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new sentence: ``A feasibility study 
     may be conducted under this subsection to identify routes 
     that will expedite future emergency evacuations of coastal 
     areas of Louisiana.''.
       (b) East-West Transamerica Corridor.--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. 332. HIGH COST BRIDGE PROJECTS.

       The table contained in section 1103(b) of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 
     2027-2028) 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 bypass of'' after 
     ``replacement''.

     SEC. 333. CONGESTION RELIEF PROJECTS.

       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 1, relating to Long Beach, California, 
     by striking ``HOV Lanes on'' and inserting ``downtown Long 
     Beach access ramps into the southern terminus of'';
       (2) 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'';
       (3) in item number 23, relating to Tucson, Arizona, by 
     inserting ``, of which a total of $3,609,620 shall be 
     available for the project authorized by item number 74 of the 
     table contained in section 1106(b)'' after ``in Tuscon, 
     Arizona''; and
       (4) in item number 43, relating to West Virginia, by 
     striking ``Coal Fields'' and inserting ``Coalfields''.

     SEC. 334. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

       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: 
     ``commencing on the Atlantic Coast in the Hampton Roads-
     Norfolk area going westward across Virginia to a West 
     Virginia corridor centered around Beckley to Welch as part of 
     the Coalfields Expressway described in section 1069(v), then 
     to Williamson sharing a common corridor with the I-73/74 
     Corridor (referred to in item 12
      of the table contained in subsection (f)), then to a 
     Kentucky Corridor centered on the cities of Pikeville, 
     Jenkins, Hazard, London, Somerset, Columbia, Bowling 
     Green, Hopkinsville, Benton, and Paducah, into Illinois, 
     and into Missouri and exiting Western Missouri and 
     entering the southeast corner of Kansas''.

     SEC. 335. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDOR PROJECTS.

       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 up to $11,000,000 for'';
       (2) in item 2, relating to Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, 
     Tennessee, by inserting after ``Rt. 72'' the following: ``and 
     up to $1,500,000 from the State of Alabama's share of the 
     project for modification of the Keller Memorial Bridge in 
     Decatur, Alabama, to a pedestrian structure''; and
       (3) in item number 26, relating to Indiana, Kentucky, 
     Tennessee, by striking ``Newberry'' and inserting 
     ``Evansville''.
     SEC. 336. RURAL ACCESS PROJECTS.

       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 Interstate 20'' and inserting ``with 
     Interstate 10 through Interstate 20 and Interstate 27 north 
     of Amarillo to the Texas/Oklahoma border'';
       (4) in item number 71, relating to Chautauqua County, New 
     York, by inserting ``and other improvements'' after 
     ``expressway lanes'';
       (5) 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'';
       (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-''.

     SEC. 337. 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 (9), relating to New York, New York, by 
     striking ``Improvements'' and all that follows through ``NY'' 
     and inserting ``Projects in New York City, New York (other 
     than improvements to the Miller Highway)'';
       (2) in item number 13, relating to Joliet, Illinois, by 
     striking ``and construction and interchange at Houbolt Road 
     and I-80'';
       (3) 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''; and
       (4) in item number 52, relating to Chicago, Illinois, by 
     striking ``Right-of-way'' and all that follows through 
     ``Connector)'' and inserting ``Reconstruct the Michigan 
     Avenue viaduct''.

     SEC. 338. 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 19, relating to Water Street, Pennsylvania--
       (A) by striking ``Water Street,''; 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 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;
       (3) in item number 24, relating to Pennsylvania, by 
     inserting after ``line'' the following: ``and for the 
     purchase, rehabilitation, and improvement of any similar 
     existing facility within a 150-mile radius of such project, 
     as selected by the State of Pennsylvania'';
       (4) in item number 29, relating to Blacksburg, Virginia, by 
     inserting ``methods of facilitating public and private 
     participation in'' after ``demonstrate'';
       (5) 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'';

[[Page H 9286]]

       (6) in item 49, relating to Suffolk County, New York, by 
     inserting after ``perimeters'' the following: ``and provide 
     funds to the towns of Brookhaven, Riverhead, Smithtown, East 
     Hampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Southampton for the 
     purchase of
      vehicles to meet the transportation needs of the elderly and 
     persons with disabilities'';
       (7) in item number 52, relating to Pennsylvania, by 
     striking ``2'' and all that follows through ``Pennsylvania'' 
     and inserting ``or rehabilitate (or both) highway and 
     transportation infrastructure projects within 30 miles of I-
     81 or I-80 in northeastern Pennsylvania'';
       (8) in item number 61, relating to Mojave, California, by 
     striking ``Mojave'' and inserting ``Victorville'' and by 
     inserting ``Mojave'' after ``reconstruct'';
       (9) in item number 68, relating to Portland/S. Portland, 
     Maine--
       (A) by striking ``Portland/S. Portland,''; and
       (B) by inserting after ``Bridge'' the following: ``and 
     improvements to the Carlton Bridge in Bath-Woolworth'';
       (10) in item number 76, relating to Tennessee, by inserting 
     ``Improved access to'' before ``I-81'' and striking 
     ``Interchange'' and inserting after ``Tennessee'' the 
     following: ``via improvements at I-181/Eastern Star Road and 
     I-81/Kendrick Creek Road'';
       (11) in item number 100, relating to Arkansas, by striking 
     ``Thornton'' and inserting ``Little Rock'';
       (12) in item number 113, relating to Durham County, North 
     Carolina, by inserting after ``Route 147'' the following: ``, 
     including the interchange at I-85'';
       (13) 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'';
       (14) in item number 193, relating to Corning, New York, by 
     inserting ``and other improvements'' after ``expressway 
     lanes''; and
       (15) in item 196, relating to Orlando, Florida--
       (A) by striking ``Orlando,''; and
       (B) by striking ``Land'' and all that follows through 
     ``project'' and inserting ``One or more regionally 
     significant, intercity ground transportation projects''.

     SEC. 339. 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 12, relating to Buffalo, New York, by 
     inserting after ``Project'' the following: ``and the 
     Crossroads Arena Project''; and
       (2) in item number 31, relating to Los Angeles, California, 
     by striking ``To improve ground access from Sepulveda Blvd. 
     to Los Angeles, California'' and inserting the following: 
     ``For the Los Angeles International Airport central terminal 
     ramp access project, $3,500,000; for the widening of Aviation 
     Boulevard south of Imperial Highway, $3,500,000; for the 
     widening of Aviation Boulevard north of Imperial Highway, 
     $1,000,000; and for transportation systems management 
     improvements in the vicinity of the Sepulveda Boulevard/Los 
     Angeles International Airport tunnel, $950,000''.

     SEC. 340. MISCELLANEOUS REVISIONS TO SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 
                   AND UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1987.

       (a) California.--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 the following: ``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) Louisiana.--
       (1) Rural access project.--
       (A) Rescission.--Effective October 1, 1995, the unobligated 
     balances on September 30, 1995, of funds made available for 
     section 149(a)(87) of the Surface Transportation and Uniform 
     Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (101 Stat. 194; relating to 
     West Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana) are hereby rescinded.
       (B) Funding.--Item number 17 of the table contained in 
     section 1106(a)(2) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2038), relating to Lake 
     Charles, Louisiana, is amended by striking ``4.1'' and 
     inserting ``8.8''.
       (2) I-10 exit ramp and other projects.--Section 149(a)(89) 
     of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation 
     Assistance Act of 1987 (101 Stat. 191) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``and lake charles'' after ``lafayette'' 
     in the paragraph heading; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end ``and, of 
     amounts made available to carry out this paragraph, may use 
     up to $456,022 to carry out a comprehensive transportation 
     and land use plan for Lafayette, Louisiana, $1,000,000 to 
     carry out a project to construct an exit ramp from the 
     eastbound side of Interstate Route I-10 to Ryan Street in 
     Lake Charles, Louisiana, and $269,661 under this paragraph 
     for projects described in section 149(a)(90)''.
       (3) Contraband bridge.--Section 149(a)(90) of such Act (101 
     Stat. 191) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``and lake charles'' after ``lafayette'' 
     in the paragraph heading; and
       (B) by inserting ``and a project to construct the 
     Contraband Bridge portion of the Nelson Access Road Project'' 
     before the period at the end.
       (c) Pennyslvania.--Section 149(a)(74) of the Surface 
     Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 
     (101 Stat. 192) is amended by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``and other projects in the counties 
     of Bedford, Blair, Centre, Franklin, and Huntingdon, 
     Pennsylvania''.
       (d) Maryland.--Section 149(a)(92) of such Act (101 Stat. 
     194) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``United states route 48'' and inserting 
     ``Washington and frederick counties''; and
       (2) by inserting ``and to construct an interchange between 
     Interstate Route I-70 and Interstate Route I-270 in Frederick 
     County, Maryland'' after ``Mountain Road''.
       (e) Bus Testing Facility.--Section 5318 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b) by inserting ``or cooperative 
     agreement'' after ``contract'' each place it appears; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Conversion of Contracts.--The Secretary may convert 
     existing contracts entered into under this section into 
     cooperative agreements.''.
     SEC. 341. ELIGIBILITY.

       (a) Existing Project.--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''.
       (b) Other Existing Projects.--
       (1) Reconstruction and widening.--The project authorized by 
     section 162 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 
     1982 (96 Stat. 2136) shall include reconstruction and 
     widening to 6 lanes of existing Interstate Route 95 and of 
     the Pennsylvania Turnpike from United States Route 1 to the 
     junction with the New Jersey Turnpike.
       (2) Federal share.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Federal share payable on account of the project 
     referred to in paragraph (1), including the additional 
     through roadway and bridge travel lanes, shall be 90 percent 
     of the cost of the project.
       (3) Tolls.--Notwithstanding section 301 of title 23, United 
     States Code, the project for construction of an interchange 
     between the Pennsylvania Turnpike and Interstate Route 95, 
     including the widening of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, shall be 
     treated as a reconstruction project described in section 
     129(a)(1)(B) of such title and tolls may be continued on all 
     traffic on the Pennsylvania Turnpike between United States 
     Route 1 and the New Jersey Turnpike.
       (c) Type II Noise Barriers.--No funds made available out of 
     the Highway Trust Fund may be used to construct Type II noise 
     barriers (as defined by section 772.5(i) of title 23, Code of 
     Federal Regulations) pursuant to sections 109 (h) and (i) of 
     title 23, United States Code if such barriers were not part 
     of a project approved by the Secretary before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 342. ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, TOLL ROADS.

       The Secretary shall enter into an agreement modifying the 
     agreement entered into pursuant to section 339 of the 
     Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-338) to conform such 
     agreement to the provisions of section 336 of the Department 
     of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1995 (Public Law 103-331). Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to change the amount of the previous appropriation 
     in such section 339, and the line of credit provided for 
     shall not exceed an amount supported by the previous 
     appropriation. In implementing such sections 336 and 339, the 
     Secretary may enter into an agreement requiring an interest 
     rate that is higher than the rate specified in such sections.

     SEC. 343. MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES.

       (a) Pan American Highway.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on the 
     adequacy of and the need for improvements to the Pan American 
     Highway.
       (2) Elements.--The study to be conducted under paragraph 
     (1) shall include, at a minimum, the following elements:
       (A) Findings on the benefits of constructing a highway at 
     Darien Gap, Panama and Colombia.
       (B) Recommendations for a self-financing arrangement for 
     completion and maintenance of the Pan American Highway.
       (C) Recommendations for establishing a Pan American highway 
     authority to monitor financing, construction, maintenance, 
     and operations of the Pan American Highway.
       (D) Findings on the benefits to trade and prosperity of a 
     more efficient Pan American Highway.
       (E) 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.

[[Page H 9287]]

       (F) Findings on environmental considerations, including 
     environmental considerations relating to the Darien Gap.
       (3) 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 subsection.
       (b) Highway Signs for National Highway System.--The 
     Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the cost, need, 
     and efficacy of establishing a highway sign for identifying 
     routes on the National Highway System. In conducting such 
     study, the Secretary shall make a determination concerning 
     whether to identify National Highway System route numbers.
       (c) Compliance With Buy American Act.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on 
     compliance with the provisions of the Buy American Act (41 
     U.S.C. 10a-10c) with respect to contracts entered into using 
     amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund.
       (2) 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 
     paragraph (1).

     SEC. 344. COLLECTION OF BRIDGE TOLLS.

       Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, tolls 
     collected for motor vehicles on any bridge connecting the 
     boroughs of Brooklyn, New York, and Staten Island, New York, 
     shall continue to be collected for only those vehicles 
     exiting from such bridge in Staten Island.

     SEC. 345. NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER.

       Section 30308(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``and $2,550,000 for fiscal year 1995'' 
     and inserting ``and $2,550,000 for each of fiscal years 1995 
     and 1996''.
     SEC. 346. 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''.

     SEC. 347. MOTORIST CALL BOXES.

       (a) Effective Control.--Section 131(c) of title 23, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and (5)'' and inserting the following: 
     ``(5) signs, displays, and devices identifying and announcing 
     free motorist aid call boxes and advertising their 
     sponsorship by corporations or other organizations, and 
     (6)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The 
     Secretary shall ensure that spacing of signs, displays, and 
     devices announcing motorist aid call boxes is reasonable.''.
       (b) Specific Service Signs.--Section 131(f) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     `specific information in the interest of the traveling 
     public' includes identification, announcement, and 
     sponsorship of motorist aid call boxes.''.

     SEC. 348. REPEAL OF NATIONAL MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT COMPLIANCE 
                   PROGRAM.

       Sections 141(a) and 154 of title 23, United States Code, 
     and the item relating to section 154 in the analysis to 
     chapter 1 of such title are repealed.
     SEC. 349. ELIMINATION OF PENALTY FOR NONCOMPLIANCE FOR 
                   MOTORCYCLE HELMETS.

       Subsection (h) of section 153 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``a law described in subsection 
     (a)(1) and'' each place it appears.

     SEC. 350. SAFETY REST AREAS.

       Section 120(c) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``safety rest areas,'' after ``signalization,''.

     SEC. 351. EXEMPTIONS FROM REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COMMERCIAL 
                   MOTOR VEHICLES AND THEIR OPERATORS.

       (a) Exemptions.--
       (1) Transportation of agricultural commodities and farm 
     supplies.--Regulations prescribed by the Secretary under 
     sections 31136 and 31502 of title 49, United States Code, 
     regarding maximum driving and on-duty time for drivers used 
     by motor carriers shall not apply to drivers transporting 
     agricultural commodities or farm supplies for agricultural 
     purposes in a State if such transportation is limited to an 
     area within a 50 air mile radius from the source of the 
     commodities or the distribution point for the farm supplies 
     and is during the planting and harvesting seasons within such 
     State, as determined by the State.
       (2) Transportation and operation of ground water well 
     drilling rigs.--Such regulations shall, in the case of a 
     driver of a commercial motor vehicle who is used primarily in 
     the transportation and operation of a ground water well 
     drilling rig, permit any period of 8 consecutive days to end 
     with the beginning of an off-duty period of 24 or more 
     consecutive hours for the purposes of determining maximum 
     driving and on-duty time.
       (3) Transportation of construction materials and 
     equipment.--Such regulations shall, in the case of a driver 
     of a commercial motor vehicle who is used primarily in the 
     transportation of construction materials and equipment, 
     permit any period of 8 consecutive days to end with the 
     beginning of an off-duty period of 24 or more consecutive 
     hours for the purposes of determining maximum driving and on-
     duty time.
       (4) Snow and ice removal.--A State may waive the 
     requirements of chapter 313 of title 49, United States Code, 
     with respect to a vehicle that is being operated within the 
     boundaries of an eligible unit of local government by an 
     employee of such unit for the purpose of removing snow or ice 
     from a roadway by plowing, sanding, or salting. Such waiver 
     authority shall only apply in a case where the employee is 
     needed to operate the vehicle because the employee of the 
     eligible unit of local government who ordinarily operates the 
     vehicle and who has a commercial drivers license is unable to 
     operate the vehicle or is in need of additional assistance 
     due to a snow emergency.
       (b) Effective Date.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall 
     take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (c) Review by the Secretary.--The Secretary may conduct a 
     rulemaking proceeding to determine whether granting any 
     exemption provided by subsection (a) is not in the public 
     interest and would have a significant adverse impact on the 
     safety of commercial motor vehicles. If, at any time, the 
     Secretary determines that granting such exemption would not 
     be in the public interest and would have a significant 
     adverse impact on the safety of commercial motor vehicles, 
     then the Secretary may prevent the exemption from going into 
     effect, modify the exemption, or revoke the exemption.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) 8 consecutive days.--The term ``8 consecutive days'' 
     means the period of 8 consecutive days beginning on any day 
     at the time designated by the motor carrier for a 24-hour 
     period.
       (2) 24-hour period.--The term ``24-hour period'' means any 
     24-consecutive hour period beginning at the time designated 
     by the motor carrier for the terminal from which the driver 
     is normally dispatched.
       (3) Ground water well drilling rig.--The term ``ground 
     water well drilling rig'' means any vehicle, machine, 
     tractor, trailer, semi-trailer, or specialized mobile 
     equipment propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used on 
     highways to transport water well field operating equipment, 
     including water well drilling and pump service rigs equipped 
     to access ground water.
       (4) Transportation of construction materials and 
     equipment.--The term ``transportation of construction 
     materials and equipment'' means the transportation of 
     construction materials, construction finished related 
     products, construction personnel, and construction equipment 
     by a driver within a 50 air mile radius of the normal work 
     reporting location of the driver.
       (5) Eligible unit of local government.--The term ``eligible 
     unit of local government'' means a city, town, borough, 
     county, parish, district, or other public body created by or 
     pursuant to State law which has a total population of 3,000 
     individuals or less.

     SEC. 352. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS.

       Traffic control signs erected under the experimental 
     project conducted in the State of Oregon in December 1991 
     shall be deemed to comply with the requirements of section 
     2B-4 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices of the 
     Department of Transportation.

     SEC. 353. BRIGHTMAN STREET BRIDGE, FALL RIVER HARBOR, 
                   MASSACHUSETTS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Brightman 
     Street Bridge in Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts, may be 
     reconstructed to result in a clear channel width of less than 
     300 feet.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title III?


                    amendment offered by mr. rahall

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 27.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. Rahall: Strike section 348.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement, 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, the bill before us contains a provision that would 
simply repeal the national speed limit. Plain and simple, it repeals 
the national speed limit.
  Under this provision, then, the States could set no speed limit 
whatsoever. No speed limit whatsoever. Or 

[[Page H 9288]]
they could establish a speed limit of 100 miles per hour or whatever.
  Despite the fact that proponents of eliminating the national speed 
limit often couch their proposal in terms of this being a matter of 
States' rights, the bottom line, in my view, is that it is a matter of 
saving lives; and that, my colleagues, should take precedence over any 
of these idealistic assumptions over the role of State and Federal 
Governments. For let there be no doubt in anyone's mind, the effort to 
repeal the national speed limit represents nothing other than an 
attempt to increase speed limits.
  Today, Mr. Chairman, 1,000 people are slaughtered each month on our 
Nation's highways in speed-related crashes, That is 12,000 deaths each 
year due to traveling at high speeds. This, I say to my colleagues, is 
under the existing 55 mile per hour national speed limit with 65 
possible on rural interstate segments.
  It should be obvious that the death toll will rise once the States 
begin increasing the maximum speed limit under the provision of this 
bill.
  The enactment of the bill's repeal provision would, in effect, turn 
our Nation's highways into killing fields. It will turn our highways 
into killing fields.
  I say to my colleagues, this is not a matter of State rights. It is a 
matter of human rights. The Federal Government paid 90 percent of the 
cost of constructing the Interstate System, and it still pays that 
amount to maintain it. There is, as such, a justifiable Federal role in 
ensuring the safety of those traveling on this system.
  In addition, the interstates are just that, they are interstates. 
They are not intrastates. Cars traveling to the borders of States do 
not bounce around and go back and stay within that State. They travel 
across State lines.
  We are talking about a Federal responsibility here. People traveling 
across State lines should not be subject to the dictates of any 
individual State.
  So, again, I hardly see where a matter involving interstate 
transportation can be viewed as an intrusion of States rights; and I 
would urge that this type of rhetoric that we will hear during debate 
on this amendment be dismissed outright.
  For these reasons, the amendment I am offering would strike the 
proposed repeal of the national speed limit; and it would maintain 
existing law.
  I might add as well, Mr. Chairman, that Members have before them a 
letter from our Secretary, very fine Secretary of Transportation, Mr. 
Pena, stating the administration's opposition to removal of the 
national speed limit.
  I say in addition to that fact we have in this Chamber today the 
administrator of our Federal Highway Administration, Mr. Rodney Slater, 
who has been very helpful to us in this legislation and will continue 
to be as we go on down the process. And he, as well, has expressed his 
very strong concerns about the removal of the national speed limit.
  I would urge acceptance of this amendment, which returns to the law 
as we know it today, a law that has saved lives.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment which would strike from 
H.R. 2274 the repeal of the national maximum speed limit and associated 
penalties.
  We have already seen what happens when motorists believe that a 
particular speed limit is too low for the conditions of a road--they 
exceed the limit. How many Americans drive faster than 55 miles per 
hour? The recent increase to 65 miles per hour on some of our rural 
interstates simply made legal the status quo--we already were driving 
65.
  Let me be clear that if we remove the national maximum speed limit, 
we will not find ourselves with no speed limits on any roads as you 
might think from listening to some. The States will step in and take up 
this responsibility which is the way it should be. A one-size-fits-all 
approach has proven to be very frustrating from many States and 
motorists. What is an appropriate speed for the urban Northeast may not 
be appropriate for certain areas in Montana, or Texas, or other more 
desolate regions in the country.
  I cannot understand why some seem to believe that only Washington is 
capable of setting speed limits. Do we really believe that States are 
not capable of doing this, that the States do not care just as much, if 
not more, for the safety and well-being of motorists in their States?
  By repealing the national maximum speed limit, we will once again 
allow the States, based on their own intimate knowledge of particular 
road designs, conditions, location, and other relevant factors, to 
determine the appropriate speed limit for each of their roads.
  I believe the States are capable of this, that they are concerned 
about the safety of their citizens and that they will act responsibly 
and in the best interests of motorists.
  I urge the House to defeat this amendment.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have noted the ranking minority member's opposition to this 
amendment, Mr. Chairman, but I know that we had this issue debated in 
full committee, and we had, as I am sure we do on the floor, the very 
strong support for this amendment and vehement opposition to lifting 
the speed limit from the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and I know he will make his position 
known before the day is over.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking minority member.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rahall 
amendment. Quite simply, this amendment is a lifesaver. And, it is 
critical to controlling taxes and government spending.
  My colleagues opposing this amendment will tell you that repealing 
the national speed limit does not actually raise a single speed limit. 
In fact, at least five States already have laws that immediately 
increase their speed limits, if we repeal the national limit. These 
very same States already have some of the highest rates of speed-
related deaths in the country.
  For example, Oklahoma's speed limit will increase to 70 miles per 
hour on interstates and 65 on secondary roads. Oklahoma already has the 
highest percentage of speed-related deaths in the country, 48 percent 
of all highway deaths, with current maximums in place. Imagine what the 
percentage will be with a 70-mile-per-hour limit. In California, my own 
home State, where legislators are already talking about speed limits up 
to 70 miles per hour, 40 percent of all highway deaths are speed-
related.
  Also, we can look at the situation before Congress enacted the 
national maximum speed limit. Only one State, New York, had a 55 mile 
per hour speed limit. Most States had limits of 70 miles per hour or 
greater. Two States, Montana and Nevada, had no limit whatsoever. And, 
we had over 54,000 highway deaths.
  When the national limit took effect, highway deaths dropped by over 
9,000, the very first year, 16 percent compared to a 2 percent drop in 
vehicle miles traveled.
  My colleagues will argue that cars are safer today and therefore, 
higher speeds are safer than they used to be. That may be true, but no 
car has yet been built that will fully protect the occupants. Higher 
speeds increase the likelihood of a crash. Stopping distances are 
longer, and impact speeds are greater. When speed limits increased on 
some rural interstates after the 1987 change, hundreds more fatalities 
occurred, causing nearly $1 billion in additional costs.
  Moreover, as speed increases, the impact force increases 
exponentially, increasing the likelihood of serious injury. This 
relationship holds no matter what safety equipment is on the car. It is 
a fundamental law of physics that this Congress cannot repeal. The 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that raising 
the speed limit just to 65 miles per hour on all roads will lead to 
more than 6,400 additional deaths and nearly $20 billion higher total 
costs, every year. That is with the safety equipment on today's cars. 
This bill will result in far more deaths and far greater costs, because 
it would allow speed limits of far more than 65 miles per hour.

[[Page H 9289]]

  My colleagues opposing this amendment will argue that this issue is 
not about death and injury. They say that States and local governments 
can understand the body counts, just as well as Federal elected 
officials. They present this as simply a states' rights issue.
  But the truth is that the results of repealing all Federal speed 
limits are not confined within the boundaries of the States that raise 
their speed limits. These results are not confined to the individuals 
who drive higher speeds. We all pay. The current number of speed-
related crashes already costs $24 billion, every year. We pay through 
higher taxes to fund Medicare and Medicaid for those who need long-term 
care due to severe injuries. We pay through higher prices for goods and 
services, because employers pay for sick leave for their employees and 
lost productivity.
  Our actions are not self-contained. We are members of communities, in 
which individual actions impose costs and burdens on others. This 
amendment will impose substantial new burdens on taxpayers--its that 
simple. When one State raises its speed limits, taxpayers in all States 
will pay the costs.
  The original purpose of today's bill is to designate the National 
Highway System, roads of national significance. No one is questioning 
this concept, roads of national significance. No one here is arguing 
that the Federal Government should stop funding highway programs.
  To then argue that there is no national interest in the safety of 
these very same roads makes no sense. Therefore, I must strongly urge 
my colleagues to support the Rahall amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most important amendments we are 
going to consider on this National Highway System legislation. In this 
amendment we are dealing with the lives, livelihoods, and family life 
of drivers on America's highways. Those who are involved in accidents 
such as the driver of the car that caused the accident or the driver or 
passenger in another vehicle that was struck by the errant driver 
suffer long-term consequences, loss of mobility, loss of income, high 
cost of hospitalization, and, of course the ultimate tragedy, loss of 
life.
  Several years ago when we first considered in this Chamber during my 
service in the Congress legislation to extend the drive 55 highway 
speed limit, I happened to be out in the southern part of my district 
meeting with Minnesota Highway Patrol officers. One of them had just 
come back from a tragic accident, a high speed accident on the highway. 
I said: ``the day after tomorrow we are going to consider the matter of 
limiting speed on America's highways and keepin the drive 55 limit in 
place.''
  This officer looked me square in the eye with the burden of that 
tragedy still in his mind and blood on his uniform, and he said,

       It is at speeds of 75 and 80 and 85 when we see the torn 
     aortas, and you cannot put them back together again, when the 
     victim is lying there bleeding uncontrollably in a tangled 
     mass of steel and you cannot cut him out soon enough to save 
     the life. And if you allow at the national level the States 
     to raise the speed limits, they will, and we will, out on the 
     highway, be seeing more deaths and more tragedies and more 
     broken families and more broken lives.

  Our former chairman, the late Jim Howard, in the debate in committee 
and on the House floor, said there are few occasions in your career in 
public service when you have an opportunity to save 5,000 lives a year. 
This is one of those opportunities. We can save a minimum of 5,000 
lives by keeping the highway speed limit in place.
  I know that the thrust and the drive in this 104th Congress is to 
give States more responsibility, turn these authorities over to them, 
and that Congress should not set national standards, limits, 
requirements. But we, too, are responsible at the national level for 
what happens on America's highways. We, too, pass legislation. We 
impose the fuel tax, we set the conditions under which our National 
Highway System is constructed and operated, and we have a 
responsibility to the same people in our respective States that our 
Governors and State legislators have.
  My vote in this Chamber is not relevant just to Minnesota; it is 
relevant to the whole country, as is the vote of every other Member in 
this Chamber. I have a responsibility to safety on the highways in 
every State, not just in Minnesota. At the dawn of the interstate era, 
when the Congress was considering establishing the national system of 
interstate and defense highways, the death toll on America's highways 
was going up at such a rate that it was estimated, if we did not build 
such a system of safe highways, in 15 years we would be killing 108,000 
people a year on the Nation's highways. That was in 1956. The death 
toll went up to as high as 57,000 on the Nation's highways, until the 
energy crisis caused us, for reasons of energy conservation, to lower 
the speed limit to 55. Then we found the hidden benefit, that lowering 
the speed limit, as everybody knew and suspected but did not have the 
public courage to act upon, would save lives. And it did. Dramatically, 
the speed limit caused a lowering of the death rate.
  As chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I held 
hearings on highway safety, on roadside hazards that are built into the 
highway system that cause deaths when a person loses control of a car. 
We have made a great deal of progress in removing roadside hazards, in 
building safer highways, hazards that may occur when a person falls 
asleep at the wheel, or is otherwise distracted, caught in a snowstorm 
or rainstorm, and leaves the traveled roadway, that may cause injury or 
death. Instead of being impaled on a light pole, we have breakaway 
light poles. Instead of crashing into a metal barrier that decapitates 
the driver of the car, we now have the New Jersey barrier that guides 
the vehicle back on to the roadway.
  We have about reached the limit of what we can do in building safer 
highways, safer bridges, educating the driving public to drive more 
safely. There are just some things that must be imposed upon people, 
and a speed limit is one of them.
  Now, I have heard the discussion earlier today that well, you know, 
at 55, people are passing you, they are going 65, and all the 65 speed 
limit did was to ratify what people were doing on the highways. If you 
set it at 65, the highway patrol officers will tell you, people will 
drive another 10 miles an hour faster on the roadways.
                              {time}  1415

  Just a couple of weeks ago, before we began this debate, I met with 
highway patrol officers in Minnesota. They told me the same thing as 
others did 15 years ago: ``If you raise the speed limit, people will 
again drive 10 or more miles per hour above it.'' Keeping the speed 
limit in place is a brake upon people's drive, ambition to go ever 
faster and risk their lives and those of other innocent people on 
America's roadways.
  In the name of States rights, in the name of human rights, in the 
name of family rights, keep the speed limit in place.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I rise today in opposition to the Rahall amendment. There are many 
statistics that we can look at. They tell us that approximately 30 
percent of the fatalities are committed by those who are speeding. We 
will also be told that approximately 70 percent of the drivers on the 
road are speeding. If we use those numbers, it would mean the 30 
percent who are not speeding are involved in 70 percent of the 
fatalities. We can use all kinds of numbers for all kinds of things.
  The national speed limit was put in place in 1973 to conserve fuel. 
It had nothing to do with safety. Cars have been upgraded significantly 
since then, highways have been upgraded significantly since then. So I 
submit that the national speed limit is not something that is important 
today. What is important is States rights. What is important is that 
the States have the right to make the selection of the speeds 
appropriate to them.

[[Page H 9290]]

  There is not a lot of commonality between the roads in New York and 
Texas, or New Jersey and Oklahoma. There is quite a lot of different in 
density, in topography, and the quality of the roads themselves. That 
is quite different.
  However, we are not raising the speed limit today. There is nothing 
in this bill that raises the speed limit. What we are saying is we are 
giving the States the opportunity to determine for themselves what is 
in their best interests in their States. I happen to believe that those 
in the Oklahoma legislature or the Texas legislature or the Nevada 
legislature, and their State department of transportation, have a 
better understanding of their roads than some bureaucrat in Washington.
  Those of us who vote for the Rahall amendment today, who vote to keep 
a national speed limit, are saying that our State legislatures, our 
State departments of transportation, do not have the sense or the 
ability to determine what is in their best interests. I happen to 
believe they do have. I believe that they have every bit of interest in 
safety that we have, and I believe that they can do it.
  I urge Members to oppose the Rahall amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In response to my dear friend and fine colleague, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma, this particular Member does not mean to cast any aspersions 
on our State legislatures whatsoever. I did not have the honor of 
serving in such a body, but I know that they have the best interests of 
their States at heart, that they serve with a maximum amount of ability 
and talent to make the right decisions.
  However, what we are doing here today, if we remove a national speed 
limit, is allowing in some States, without any decision of their State 
legislators, for that speed limit in that State to automatically 
increase, or not even exist, not even have a speed limit. So, in 
effect, without any decision of the State legislature or reconvening of 
that State legislature, we have no speed limit then in those States. 
Montana and Nevada, for example, had no speed limit prior to enactment 
of the national 55 miles per hour speed limit.
  Granted, the original purpose for the enactment of this speed limit 
was the oil embargo in the mid-1970's, the desire to conserve fuel. 
That turned out to be an empty threat. Today, we are importing more oil 
than we were at that time, yet we have no threat of an oil embargo. And 
even if we were, I submit, it would be another empty threat.
  If that is what it takes to save American lives, then I say let all 
of these empty oil threats come from whatever country wants to issue 
them against the United States. If that causes the U.S. Congress to 
save American lives, I submit that we ought to maintain this 55 miles 
per hour speed limit.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 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 from West Virginia 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
West Virginia which will save lives and prevent thousands of needless 
deaths on our Nation's highways.
  The issue before us is not whether speed limits save lives--there is 
no question that they do. We have 20 years of evidence to show that--
from speed limit laws that were passed to save energy, not to save 
lives.
  The issue is whether we are willing to take the actions that will 
save lives--thousands of lives.
  According to the National Academy of Sciences, the national speed 
limit law saves 2,000 to 4,000 lives each year.
  Is saving 5 or 10 minutes on a trip worth an extra 2,000 to 4,000 
lives every year along with countless injuries?
  How many lives and injuries is it worth to save those extra few 
minutes on the road?
  Based on the National Academy of Sciences study, the national maximum 
speed limit law has saved 40,000 to 80,000 lives in the past two 
decades.
  Eighty thousand people is a lot of people--it is almost like wiping 
out the entire population of our State capital of Harrisburg.
  There are very few other areas where we can look at laws and say they 
have direct impact on whether people live or die--but the national 
speed limit is one of them.
  If we decide to eliminate the speed limit laws, we will be choosing 
death for thousands of our citizens every year.
  When speeds increase, people have less control of their cars and 
crashes are more damaging.
  There is a much greater chance of an accident resulting in death or 
serious injury at 65 than at 55. There is an even greater chance of 
death or serious injury at 75.
  There should be no question that speeds will increase if the speed 
limit is increased. There are people who will always drive at 10 miles 
per hour more than the speed limit, no matter what the limit is.
  There are also people who won't increase their speeds--increasing the 
differences in the rates of speed on the road and leading to even more 
accidents.
  Mr. Chairman, the speed limit was not intended to be a safety measure 
but, through a combination of circumstances we stumbled on a measure 
that has been extremely effective in saving lives.
  It would be a tragic mistake to repeal that life-saving measure now 
and set in motion a process that could result in thousands more 
Americans dying every year.
  I urge support of the amendment by the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Madison, WI [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, last Saturday I took my 6-year-old to a soccer game at 
Madison, pulled off the road on which we live to get onto the Beltway 
that surrounds the city of Madison, and was struck by three facts. 
First of all, the speed limits on the highway I had just driven onto 
were set by the Federal Government. If I was speeding on that highway, 
it would be the State of Wisconsin who would pull me over, and if I had 
to go to court to fight a ticket I would end up in a State of Wisconsin 
court. But here it is, the Federal Government telling the State of 
Wisconsin what the speed limit has to be outside of Madison, WI.
  If Brett and I had been on a motorcycle instead of a car, we would 
have soon discovered that in the next couple of months, the State of 
Wisconsin would have had to pass a law to throw out a motorcycle 
education program we have had in place and put it with a motorcycle 
helmet law about to come down from the Federal Government; except if we 
prevail today, we will stop that, too.
  Wisconsin used to have a motorcycle helmet law in place. We took it 
away and repealed it with an education program, and we now have fewer 
serious accidents, fewer serious accidents, and we have fewer 
fatalities than States that have helmet laws in place. However, here is 
Washington, telling us the speed limit and discussing helmet laws.
  As I drove onto that highway, there was a sign that said how far it 
was from Madison to Milwaukee. It is about 72 miles. But there was a 
mandate from the Federal Government last year that said every county 
had to replace those mile signs with metric measurements. This is 500 
yards down the road, and the Federal Government is telling me 
everything I can do along the way.
  I think the provisions in this bill which repeal the speed limit and 
which repeal the mandates from Washington on the helmet laws are 
absolutely right on target. In fact, from my mind, it does not go quite 
far enough. I have 40,000 students at the University of Wisconsin in 
Madison. We, the Federal Government, tell the State what the drinking 
age has to be. I think you do to a 19-year-old who drinks and drives, 
what you do to a 39-year-old who drinks and drive, you take their 
license away. If it is necessary, you prosecute them and put them in 
jail. So we have done the right thing, we have gone two-thirds of the 
way, and we should go one step a little bit farther, an also give 
States the discretion to make decisions about drinking ages as well.
  I just walked over from a Committee on Commerce hearing where we are 

[[Page H 9291]]
  about to give the States the authority to run Medicaid programs. I 
think that is absolutely appropriate. It should be a State decision. 
The Senate moved yesterday to turn many of the decisions involved in 
welfare reform over to the States.
  If we are smart enough to run Medicaid, which is the biggest item in 
a State Budget, and if the State governments are smart enough to run 
welfare reform, I think somehow the State capitol in Madison and 
capitols across this country have the judgment to make their own 
decision about speed limits in their own States.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman, from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The 
question I have is what makes anyone think that someone in Washington, 
DC, knows better as to how fast you should drive between Fort Worth, 
TX, and Abilene, TX, than does the State senator or State 
representative from Abilene? The only two reasons that would justify 
such a conclusion is that the person in Washington, DC, known more 
about that stretch of road than does that State representative, or 
perhaps that the person in Washington cares more about the lives of 
Texans than does that State representative from Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, I content that neither is true. I know Texans know 
Texas roads better than does any resident of Washington, DC. I know 
Texans care as much about the health and safety of their fellow Texans 
as does anyone in Washington DC. After all, when they cast a vote in 
Austin, TX, they are voting for the safety of their own children and 
their friends' children. It is not some bureaucrat in Washington, DC, 
making a decision about strangers 2,000 miles away.
  With all due respect to those who support this amendment, roads in 
the hills of West Virginia or New York or Pennsylvania do not look like 
roads in west Texas. Those from the Northeast do not know what flat is, 
I can assure you. If it is safe to drive 55 anywhere in West Virginia, 
I can assure the Members, it is equally safe to drive faster than that 
in west Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, let the experts make this decision, the experts in 
Texas, the experts in West Virginia, the experts in California, the 
experts in Montana, the experts in Minnesota. This is a very diverse 
country. Let us look to the wisdom of the people who live on those 
roads, who drive those roads, to make those decisions. Washington does 
not know best. The people in Texas know better than does the Federal 
Government about our roads, and I can assure you they care just as much 
as any employee in the Federal Government who has been in power to make 
this decision.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the Rahall amendment.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Petri] for the great job he is doing on his subcommittee. I think it is 
about time that we had that kind of common sense restored to 
Government.
  I also want to tip my hat to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Mineta] who is leaving the Congress, for the great job he is doing, and 
the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] and the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] and the entire committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the bill before us today, not this 
particular amendment, but certainly the bill. Most important, of 
course, this bill designates our National Highway System. This includes 
roads in northeast Wisconsin, like Highway Nos. 29, 41, and 441. These 
roads are the lifeline that connect us to the world, that move our 
goods and bring our tourists and support our businesses. However, it 
also restores nearly $1 billion in transportation money to the States.
  My own State of Wisconsin, for example, will have nearly $200 million 
restored to the Wisconsin transportation budget, another $80 million in 
additional highway funds for Wisconsin will be released by the passage 
of this bill, and it gives the States new flexibility in how they use 
their highway funds. For that, we thank the good common sense and the 
great intelligence of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri]. We need 
this money, and we need this flexibility.
  Finally, this bill will eliminate the heavy burdens the Federal 
Government has imposed on the States over the years. It is time the 
Government, including the bureaucrats who are determined to run our 
lives, listen to the American people. Let us face it, it is simply a 
waste of time and money to require the States to convert their highway 
signs to the metric system. The Government has been trying to force the 
metric system down the throats of the American people since the Carter 
administration. It is time to wake up. The American people do not want 
it. Whenever I go back home, whenever you go back home to your town 
hall meetings, this issue comes up. Now we have a chance to address the 
wishes of the American people. That is why I am so much in favor of 
this legislation.
  Furthermore, while I certainly believe that we must do all we can to 
promote safety, it is wrong for the Federal Government to hold the 
States hostage. It is time to remove Federal mandates the punish States 
that do not pass the kind of laws Big Brother Washington thinks that we 
should have. That is why I urge Members to support this bill, and 
oppose the amendments that would limit the authority of the States to 
make commonsense decisions for themselves.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, our earlier speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin, said 
he was struck by three facts. Pulling off the road thinking about 
highways in Wisconsin, he was just lucky not to be struck by three cars 
going at a high speed. He would have wound up in a hospital.
  My good friend from Texas said we do not want speed limits set by 
some bureaucrat in Washington. I appeal to the gentleman, I am not some 
bureaucrat in Washington. I am not some bureaucrat in Washington. I 
protest. And I do not propose to speak for the people of Texas or to 
say that I know better about their road segments than they do.
  But Interstate 35 either starts in Duluth or ends in Laredo, TX, or 
vice versa, and goes right through the gentleman's district. People in 
my State and district have a right to be protected against excessive 
speed on Federal aid highways in other States. We have something to say 
about how people drive on those roads. Make no mistake about it; this 
issue is not about whether we are going to drive faster or slower or 
whether States should have responsibility. This issue is about giving 
the States the right to increase speed limits. Opponents of national 
speed limits do not want these speed limits removed so people can drive 
slower.
  States want, and people in States around the country, some people, 
not all of them, for goodness sakes not all of them, want to drive 
faster. It is a fact of life that we drive faster. We kill people.
  We have just this summer been celebrating the end of World War II; 
440,000-plus Americans were killed in action. Every decade we kill more 
people on America's highways than we did in World War II. That ought to 
stick with us. There is a war on America's highways and we have an 
opportunity to put a limit on it and say we shall not drive faster than 
this. Why can we not do that? We must do it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me state my very strong support for this amendment, 
obviously, but also the support of some 52 organizations that have 
written this body opposing the repeal of the national maximum speed 
limit. Among this very diverse group are the Advocates for Highway and 
Auto Safety, Alliance of American Insurers, American College of 
Emergency Physicians, American Insurance Association, American Nurses 
Association, American Red Cross, Consumer Federation 

[[Page H 9292]]
of America, the Heads Up Injury Prevention Program, numerous insurance 
companies, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Public Citizen, State Farm 
Insurance Companies, among many others, have written us in strong 
support of maintaining the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit.
  In addition, we have a letter written to the ranking minority member 
of our committee from the American Trucking Associations' Mr. Tom 
Donahue, its president and CEO, maintaining their support, the American 
Trucking Associations' support for supporting the 55-mile-per-hour 
speed limit. Not only is it fuel conservation and less wear and tear on 
their equipment, but the most important reason the ATA states in their 
letter for supporting the 55-mile-per-hour national speed limit is that 
they are convinced it saves lives. This is from the ATA.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I do urge support of this amendment. I 
may have been born at night, but I was not born last night; and I 
recognize where the votes lie on this issue. I say to those Members 
that are concerned about State flexibility, as we have heard during 
this debate, that, if you find in your heart and in your conscience 
your inability to support this particular amendment, I do have a 
followup amendment which will set a 65-mile-per-hour speed limit cap 
and allow all the State flexibility in the world under that cap as a 
followup compromise measure. I would certainly expect those concerned 
about States rights to support that particular amendment.
  With that, I do urge adoption of this particular amendment in the 
name of saving lives.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Rahall amendment and in support of the national speed limit repeal as 
contained in the National Highway System bill.
  For too long, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government has maintained its 
heavy hand over our States in setting the Nation's speed limit and I 
can tell you as a westerner, with vast amounts of territory to drive 
through, the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit has always been viewed as 
ludicrous and mostly ignored. There is no question that in the early 
1970's, during the Arab oil embargo, we all had to pull together and 
work to conserve our energy resources. The national speed limit was 
invoked as a temporary measure for the duration of that crisis.
  Unfortunately, in Washington's typical way, someone got the idea that 
it would be best to take the one-size fits all approach and make 55 the 
law of the land. I can tell you that since that time, Nevadan's have 
been adamantly opposed to a national speed limit and I have worked to 
give the responsibility of setting speed limits back to the States, 
where it belongs.
  In 1987, I was proud to be a part of the effort that brought a little 
more common sense into this process by working to enact legislation 
that allowed the speed limit to be raised on our rural interstate 
highways to 65 miles per hour. It was a step in the right direction, 
but we need to take that final step and just plain get the Government 
out of this business. As with so many other issues best handled at the 
State level, it is Nevadans who know best what roads should be traveled 
at 35, or those that might be traveled at 65. Lets finish the job 
today!
  The right of the State to handle such matters is fundamental, and I 
strongly endorse the actions taken by the committee to eliminate the 
national speed limit. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Rahall 
amendment.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Congressman 
Rahall's amendment to retain our current speed limits. According to the 
National Academy of Sciences, the national speed limit law saves 2,000 
to 4,000 lives each year.
  Repeal of the national maximum speed limit is part of a larger effort 
by the majority to roll back the power and reach of the Federal 
Government in matters where States rights and individual choice are at 
issue. However, I don't believe the American people want their 
lawmakers to decrease public safety in the name of regulatory reform or 
under the banner of States rights. That is too high a price to pay.
  Repeal of the national speed limit law endangers the safety of all 
Americans. Some State officials have already indicated their intent to 
immediately move to repeal safety laws if the Federal programs are 
eliminated. In several States, speed limits automatically go above 65 
mph if the national maximum speed limit is repealed. If the national 
speed limit is repealed and we return to pre-1974 conditions, the 
Federal Transportation Department estimates we will be faced with an 
additional 4,750 highway deaths each year, at a cost of $15 billion.
  Who pays the price, if the speed limit is repealed?
  Taxpayers ultimately bear the cost for emergency medical and police 
response, medical treatment, days or years of lost productivity, 
disability compensation for the motor vehicle crashes that will result 
from higher speed limits.
  We know that speed is a factor in nearly one-third of all traffic 
fatalities and that motor vehicle crashes already cost society more 
than $137 billion every year. The health care portion is approximately 
$14 billion--of which Medicare and Medicaid pay $3.7 billion or almost 
30 percent.
  I strongly believe that a Federal role encouraging safety is very 
necessary. If you share my concerns and want to save lives as well as 
taxpayer dollars, vote for the Rahall amendment.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Rahall 
amendment that would kill the effort to repeal the national speed 
limit.
  I oppose this amendment on two fronts. First, reasons for the 
original speed limit are no longer valid. In 1973, because of the OPEC 
oil embargo, the Federal Government mandated that States lower speed 
limits to conserve oil. This original directive was in the interest of 
national security. The oil crisis has eased, automobiles are safer, and 
get far better mileage. In short, there is little reason to keep the 
mandate in place.
  Second, and more importantly, the 55 m.p.h. speed limit is 
disregarded by an average of 7 out of 10 drivers. It is a law that 
breeds contempt of the law and the men and women who must enforce the 
unenforceable. Highway patrolmen are a limited resource. If more 
officers are required to enforce speed limits, fewer can be assigned to 
other safety activities, such as removing drunk drivers or stopping 
drug trafficking. Numerous studies have shown that raising the speed 
limit to 65 m.p.h. does not increase the overall speed on interstates.
  The truth remains this--repeal is not a move by the Federal 
Government to raise speed limits, it simply gives States, which are in 
the best position to set speeds, the power to do so. Furthermore, 
interstates and Federal roads were built with taxpayers' money. This 
Congress should have gotten the message last November. The Federal 
Government doesn't have any money--it takes it from our citizens in the 
form of taxes.
  I urge colleagues to oppose the Rahall amendment and support speed 
limit repeal.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded votes

  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 112, 
noes 313, not voting 9, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 676]

                               AYES--112

     Abercrombie
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fowler
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnston
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Torres
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--313

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett 

[[Page H 9293]]

     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barrett (NE)
     Fattah
     Kennedy (MA)
     Moakley
     Parker
     Reynolds
     Roukema
     Sisisky
     Tucker

                              {time}  1456

  Mr. DeFAZIO and Miss COLLINS of Michigan changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. McDERMOTT, Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey, and Mrs. KENNELLY changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface 
Transportation.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] is aware, I 
have been concerned that Illinois' ability to cap, by law, the amount 
available to cover salaries of engineering and design consultants could 
be vitiated by sections 308 and 321 of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman, our Subcommittee on 
Surface Transportation chairman, if it is the gentleman's intent that 
under the State options clause designated in section 308(e)(3) and 
section 321(a)(e) of H.R. 2274, State legislatures will have the 
authority to set, by law, direct and indirect salary caps for 
employees, principals, or subcontractors of engineering and design 
firms.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Illinois will yield, 
the gentleman is correct. Under those two sections of H.R. 2274, State 
legislatures may set such salary caps within the 2-year time frame 
designated for exercising this option.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding 
that this 2-year time frame for the States to exercise their authority 
under the States option clause in H.R. 2274 is different from the time 
frame designated in the Senate bill. Will the gentleman from Wisconsin 
and the House conferees insist on the 2-year time frame contained in 
the House bill?
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will again yield, it is my 
intent to support the 2-year time frame contained in H.R. 2274.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Wisconsin for this clarification, and I would be pleased 
to work with the gentleman on this matter in conference.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my good 
friend and distinguished leader, who has done a great job on this 
legislation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  I would like to ask the chairman for a clarification of the intent of 
section 325 of this bill, relating to the Federal ban on new billboards 
on scenic byways. My concern is over the effect of this section on 
roadways previously designated by States as scenic byways and which 
pass through industrial or commercial areas.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this section the gentleman refers to 
reaffirms the ability of States to establish standards stricter than 
those in Federal law. A basic feature of the Highway Beautification Act 
is to permit States to allow billboards to remain in industrial and 
commercial areas, if States so choose. The decision rests with the 
State. Section 325 is intended simply to correct an erroneous FHWA 
interpretation of section 1047 of ISTEA and return that decision to the 
State.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. So if a State wants to designate a scenic 
byway and ban billboards even along those sections of the roadway 
passing through commercial or industrial areas, section 325 would not 
limit the State's ability to do that? Is that correct?
  Mr. SHUSTER. That is absolutely correct. States would have the 
discretion as to whether or not to ban billboards in commercial and 
industrial areas.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Where a State has previously designated a 
roadway as a scenic byway and has already exercised its discretion to 
ban billboards in commercial and industrial areas, as Pennsylvania has 
done in the case of the Blue Route, enactment of section 325 would not 
in any way disturb or invalidate the State's decision and no further 
action would be required by the State to maintain that ban?
  Mr. SHUSTER. That is absolutely correct. Again, it is very important 
to emphasize that States have complete authority to enact stricter 
prohibitions on billboards than those in Federal law. The purpose of 
the technical amendment in section 325 is to ensure that the 
designation of a scenic byway does not, by itself, change billboard 
regulation in commercial and industrial areas. But a State may ban new 
billboards anywhere in the State if it chooses and section 325 in fact 
reaffirms the State's authority to do so.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman for that 
clarification, for his interest, and I also want to acknowledge the 
work of our State senate majority leader, Joe Loper, the speaker of the 
State house, Nat Ryan, whose district this road goes through, as well 
as our colleagues from Montgomery County, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], and from 

[[Page H 9294]]
Delaware County and Philadelphia, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Foglietta].
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania about an issue that is extremely important to my State of 
Oklahoma--the funding levels which donor States receive under the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LARGENT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I can assure the 
gentleman that I am committed to carefully examining the concerns of 
donor States as we head toward reauthorization of ISTEA. I expect the 
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation to conduct comprehensive 
hearings in the next months, including formula distributions.
  I would like to emphasize to the gentleman that this NHS bill 
contains critical changes to the Minimum Allocation Program which will 
preserve its funding levels in the baseline beyond fiscal year 1997. 
Unless these changes are adopted, then the funds which have been used 
to equalize funding between the States will be lost forever.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your consideration of the 
concerns of donor States such as Oklahoma. I look forward to working 
with you and Surface Transportation Subcommittee Chairman Petri.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?


                    amendment offered by mr. rahall

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 26.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 26 offered by Mr. Rahall: Strike section 348 
     and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     SEC. 348. NATIONAL MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT.

       Section 154(a) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``fifty-five miles'' the first place it 
     appears and all that follows through ``or (4)'' and inserting 
     ``65 miles per hour, or (2)''; and
       (2) by striking ``Clause (4)'' and inserting ``Clause 
     (2)''.
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the previous unanimous-consent agreement, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] will be recognized for 10 
minutes and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] will be recognized 
for 10 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, this follow-up amendment is the perfect compromise on 
this issue. I, of course, was in strong support of the original 55-
miles-per-hour speed limit. This amendment seeks to address the 
concerns often stated on the last amendment and by many other Members 
about the issue, in their minds anyway, of States rights.
  This amendment simply establishes a maximum speed limit of 65 miles 
per hour. Under current law, as we all know, the Federal speed limit is 
set at 55 miles per hour for urban sections of interstate highways, and 
at the option of the State, 65 miles per hour for rural segments of the 
interstates. For all other highways and roads, the Federal speed limit 
remains at 55.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment adopted by the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, on the other hand, would completely 
abolish the Federal speed limit.
  Under this approach, a State could opt to set speed limits at any 
level, or for that matter, set no speed limit whatsoever.
  In this regard, I would note that prior to the establishment of the 
Federal speed limit, two States did not have any speed limits 
whatsoever. This type of situation would once again arise and be 
allowable under the committee bill as it stands.
  Now, we have heard a lot of discussion about State rights and the 
need for greater flexibility in setting speed limits. We also know, 
from statistical data, that speed kills. There should be no doubt about 
that. Speed kills.
  In addition there are economic costs. The economic costs of speed-
related deaths in this country are $24 billion each year. Mr. Chairman, 
that is $44,000 a minute, in the costs of speed-related crashes each 
year.
  Even the opponents of the last amendment and supporters of repealing 
any type of speed limit have not suggested that there not be speed 
limits whatsoever, and as such, my amendment, I think, represents a 
perfect dovetailing of the opposition concerns that have thus far been 
expressed. It recognizes that there may be a need for additional 
flexibility in establishing maximum speed limits, and it recognizes 
there should be some type of limitation on this flexibility in the 
interests of safety.
  In my amendment, the maximum speed limit that could be established by 
a State would be 65. Let me be clear: A State would not have to accept 
that speed limit; it would simply have the option to establish speed 
limits for any type of highway or road up to the maximum of 65.
  I not only view this amendment as being a fair and reasonable 
compromise on the issue of speed limits, but one that, in fact, 
addresses the concerns of both the supporters of the repeal of the 
national speed limit and the opponents of that approach.
  I urge adoption of my amendment.
  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 must oppose this amendment offered by Mr. Rahall. 
This House has voted to turn back to the States the responsibility for 
setting speed limits--including maximum speed limits. I do not believe 
we here in Washington should prejudge what is the appropriate speed in 
every area of the country. I have long heard the frustration of my 
colleagues from Texas, Oklahoma, Montana, and other areas where 
distances between destinations are very far and drivers on the roads 
are few.
  While my own State of Wisconsin, perhaps, may not see a reason to 
increase speeds beyond 65, other States may make the determination that 
it is the proper action to take. In any event, what we are saying today 
is--it is up to the States.
  So while I appreciate the sincere interest of my colleague on the 
Surface Transportation Subcommittee, I must urge the House to defeat 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, 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 ranking minority member.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rahall amendment.
  I have made very clear my position on the national maximum speed 
limit. It should remain as it is today: 65 miles per hour on rural 
interstates and interstate equivalents, and 55 miles per hour on other, 
more congested and narrower, roads.
  However, the bill before us repeals all Federal speed limits, 
allowing States to set the limit at 65, or 75, or 85, or even no limit 
at all. Before Congress enacted the national speed limit, 39 States had 
limits of 70 miles per hour or higher, and two had no limit at all. 
This bill now tells States that it is okay with us if a State says, 
``Drive whatever speed you want, the sky's the limit!''
  If this were a States rights issue, I would agree with my colleagues 
who oppose this amendment. But we cannot escape the fact that the 
impacts of raising the speed limits spill over into other States and 
into the pocketbooks of taxpayers across this country.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia is 
certainly not my position on speed limits, but at least it would 
reflect the national interest and put some upper bound on what the 
speed limit could be.
  That's certainly not enough, but it is a vast improvement over where 
we would otherwise be. The number of deaths, the number of serious 
injuries, and the burden on taxpayers will not go up as much as they 
would under the sky's-the-limit provision now in the bill.
  On that basis, I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].

[[Page H 9295]]

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Again, opposition to a national speed limit is being couched in terms 
of let the States decide. The unspelled-out argument is let the States 
go as high as they want.
  This is not a move to contain speed on America's highways. It is a 
move to allow the speed to rise, in some cases, to no limit. That is 
outrageous. This is a national highway system. The people that I 
represent in northern Minnesota have a right to be protected on 
highways they drive in other States, and when they drive on the 
highways of some other State, that they have a right to know that there 
is a reasonable limit on speed, that their life is not going to be 
endangered as they drive on America's highways in other parts of this 
country than the part that they come from.
  We have a responsibility, as national legislators, to act. We have it 
within our reach today to put a limit on speed. That limit should be 
55.
  The House has spoken. It says, ``No, let people drive as fast as they 
want.'' Make no mistake, that is not a States' rights vote, the last 
vote cast. That was a move to raise speed limits all over America.
  People want to drive furiously at the risk of their own and other 
people's lives. They should not be allowed to do so. Those who drive 
with reckless abandon should know that there are limits and that they 
will be penalized and that this is a national will and we ought to find 
the national will in this Chamber to do so and stand up and speak.
  We all know speed kills. We all know what the dangers are. We all 
know what the costs are. We ought not to shrink from our responsibility 
and say leave it up to the States, because, you know the pressures 
there are going to be on a smaller legislative body, that can be cross-
cut and cut many different ways and which will give in to the loudest 
voice.
  I regret the last vote. I regret even more a ``no'' vote on this 
amendment that puts a reasonable upper limit, gives States flexibility 
to set their own speed limit at any point, less than 65, and we ought 
to vote in favor of the very reasonable amendment that the gentleman 
from West Virginia has set forth.
  Enough is enough. Stop the carnage on America's highways. We can, 
with one vote, do so.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will not take 2 minutes. I understand 
with good intention what the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] 
wants to do. I know in my State of California, if you are driving 55 
miles an hour, you are in danger. You cannot pull out, you cannot do 
anything, because you have streaks of lightning going by you.
  But I think what the amendment attempts, there are a could of issues. 
It is not just a States rights issue, but an issue of do we trust 
someone outside Washington, DC, to make the determination on what is 
right and proper for that particular district, or that particular 
State. I think we can trust local government and local people to take 
responsibility, and I think this bill says no, we do not trust them to 
do that. There is a big difference between San Diego, CA, and Maine, 
and a lot of country in-between, and each one has different rules, 
different rights, and I think that if we allow the States to make that 
determination, they will do it in a responsible way.
  So even though there is good intention to the gentleman's amendment, 
I stand opposed to it, and I ask my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me again urge support of this 
compromise. The previous speaker spoke of if you are driving 55 miles 
per hour on California highways, people pass by you in a streak of 
lightning. Again, this is a limit of 65 miles per hour and it does 
allow States the flexibility within and underneath that cap to set 
speed limits in different parts of their States as they see fit.
  Mr. Chairman, I would submit as well, because this is a safety issue, 
that what we are discussing here is the Federal Government's 
responsibility to impose proper safety standards upon all of the people 
in this country, and we have a responsibility not only in this area 
when it comes to auto driving, but also in other areas, whether it is 
mine safety, consumer-related health, FDA, whatever, we could go down 
the list, but where the Federal Government does have a proper role and 
responsibility. It cannot be left to the States.
  Again, I am not casting aspersions upon our State legislatures, which 
I am sure will rise above local interest and make the common good 
decision. Nevertheless, we have that responsibility on the Federal 
level and we cannot allow States to get in a contest of trying to outdo 
the other State. Again, we get into each State trying to go maybe 5 
miles per hour above its neighboring State. Where does it stop? The sky 
is the limit under the committee-reported bill. This sets a reasonable 
limit. I think we ought to adopt this 65 mile an hour cap in the name 
of saving lives, and it is responsible public policy in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
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 133, 
noes 291, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 677]

                               AYES--133

     Abercrombie
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Davis
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fowler
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Pallone
     Parker
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Torres
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waxman
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yates

                               NOES--291

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte

[[Page H 9296]]

     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Fattah
     Istook
     Kennedy (MA)
     Moakley
     Neal
     Reynolds
     Roukema
     Sisisky
     Stockman
     Tucker

                              {time}  1537

  Mr. HOBSON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. CLAYTON and Mr. MARTINEZ changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I was necessarily away from the Chamber 
during the last recorded vote. I believe the number was 677.
  Had I been present, I ask the Journal to reflect I would have voted 
``nay''.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the chairman of the 
Transportation Committee on the Gowanus Expressway rehabilitation 
project.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, because of the long period of 7 to 10 
years that it is estimated it will take to complete, and the 
devastating effect that this project will have on the surrounding 
communities--including an estimated loss of $200 million to the local 
economy, as well as increased pollution and safety problems--the issue 
of the Gowanus Expressway rehabilitation project is of great concern to 
me and many of my constituents.
  The plan that the State has put forth on this matter falls far short 
of adequately addressing some very important issues. This has led to a 
bipartisan effort that has brought together community leaders, at all 
levels, in the hope of finding a sensible solution to this problem.
  The rehabilitation of this highway will cost approximately $1 
billion. That works out to nearly $300 million per mile, making this 
the costliest transportation project in New York State. Mr. Chairman, 
this single project will have an adverse effect on the quality of life 
of 300,000 New Yorkers--more than any other transportation project.
  Other area highway projects, which affect far fewer New Yorkers, and 
cost far less money, have been subject to greater study. In this case, 
however, the State has done little in the way of examining measures 
that can reduce the harmful effects on the community or the options 
available to better address the transportation woes.
  In the event that we are unable to resolve the problems which I have 
briefly outlined, it is my hope that as the House goes to conference on 
this bill, the chairman will be willing to leave the record open on 
this issue, so that it may be addressed in the final bill--either 
through a major investment study or through some other solution.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the 
chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentlewoman has been 
working with our colleague, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Molinari], on this issue. I would encourage the State and local 
communities to work to address the issues raised here today. As we move 
forward with this bill I certainly agree to work with both of you on 
finding an agreeable solution to this problem.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster] for his commitment to this important issue, and, before I 
yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], a 
fellow New Yorker who has been instrumental on this matter, I would 
like to also thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns] for his 
support and attention to this matter and the leadership that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] has provided in addressing this 
problem. I say to the gentleman, ``Mr. Mineta, we are all going to miss 
you.''
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Velazquez] for bringing this issue to the attention of 
the House of Representatives. The Gowanus Expressway is a critical 
component of New York City's highway system. My constituents are very 
concerned about the time it will take to reconstruct this expressway as 
well as the major traffic implications which we New Yorkers will 
encounter for 10 years. It is my hope that we can work with the State 
to ensure that this project is done as quickly as possible with as 
little inconvenience as possible for thousands of New York drivers.
  Let me also join in thanking the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] for their 
willingness to work with the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez] 
and my office to address this issue, and again I commend the 
gentlewoman for bringing this issue to the forefront of the House of 
Representatives, and hopefully together, with cooperation from the 
States, we can utilize some of the resources of the Federal Government 
to spur this construction which we admit is badly needed but cannot go 
on for 10 to 15 years.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York 
[Ms. Molinari] for her remarks, and I look forward to our continued 
working together on this issue, and I also want to thank the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] for his support.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?


                    amendment offered by mr. nadler

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler: Page 90, line 17, strike 
     ``for only those'' and all that follows through the period on 
     line 18 and insert the following: ``in accordance with State 
     law.''

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am seeking to change a section in this 
bill that amounts to an unfunded Federal mandate which singles out New 
York City from the rest of the country. Section 343 of the NHS bill 
requires New York's Tri-Borough Bridge and Tunnel Authority to collect 
tolls only in the westbound direction on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. 
This is the only provision of its kind in the United States. My 
amendment will restore local control over a fundamentally local issue; 
how New York should collect tolls on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. 
Should 

[[Page H 9297]]
it be one-way westbound, one-way eastbound, or both ways? I do not 
think, with all due respect, that Congress and the President really 
have the expertise to know which is best for local traffic patterns. 
Let that be up to the government of New York City.
  Currently, having a one way toll on the Verrazano-Narrows bridge 
creates a path into the central business district of Manhattan from 
Staten Island through Brooklyn across lower Manhattan out through the 
Holland Tunnel to New Jersey. This route is used by commuters and 
commercial vehicles to avoid paying any tolls whatsoever because the 
Holland Tunnel has a one-way toll in the other direction.
                              {time}  1545

  This loophole has cost our transportation agencies between $7 and 
$8.2 million annually.
  Let me turn my attention for a moment from this legislative issue to 
one of funding. Does anyone here feel so strongly that they would be 
willing to make up these lost local dollars out of their State's 
portion of ISTEA funds?
  We are not talking money being paid by constituents all over the 
country. We are talking about money being paid by New Yorkers to our 
local transportation agencies for local transportation purposes. By 
what right does Congress tell New York how to raise money locally for 
local purposes or how to direct traffic on local streets?
  In addition to costing us local transportation funds, at a time when 
urbanized areas are being hard hit by transportation cuts, this 
unfunded mandate diverts vehicles into Brooklyn and lower Manhattan, 
thus greatly increasing air pollution which creates large pockets of 
carbon monoxide.
  We cannot afford this kind of increased air pollution in New York 
City. We are already a nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act and 
will be hit with penalties by this Congress if we do not comply. But 
the same Congress will not let us take action to reduce congestion and 
clean up our problem.
  Besides being a cause of increased pollution and being an 
inconvenience for local residents, this congestion is choking off 
maritime commerce from the Red Hook and South Brooklyn Marine Terminals 
in Brooklyn, as well as from numerous small commercial and light 
manufacturing businesses on the Brooklyn waterfront and in Sunset Park. 
We are losing jobs, and it will get worse.
  A small minority in our city want to use the Federal Government to 
circumvent local government and the popular will of the majority in our 
city. Left alone, New Yorkers will do what is in our own best interest. 
I am convinced we will get rid of the one-way tolls.
  Maybe I am wrong and the gentlewoman from Staten Island is correct 
and the local decision will be to leave the tolls the way they are. The 
gentlewoman from Staten Island will get up in a few minutes and argue 
that I am wrong and that the one-way tolls are correct for various 
local reasons.
  The point is that decision, whether I am right or she is right on 
local traffic patterns and impacts in New York City, should not be for 
this body. We claim to be for States' rights. I know we are not 
consistent. Sometimes we are, and sometimes we are not. But this is 
ridiculous. Congress is going to tell New York City which direction a 
toll should be for all time in law on a local bridge. The decision 
belongs locally.
  This unfunded mandate has caused the congestion in our streets, 
killed local businesses, and destroyed the quality of life in some of 
our communities; and unless we adopt this amendment and allow New 
Yorkers to decide what is best for our city, Congress will be allowing 
and mandating the continuing deterioration of these areas.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, not put one-way tolls 
on the Verrazano Bridge into Federal law. Let New Yorkers make the 
decision whether the Verrazano Bridge should have one-way tolls 
eastbound, westbound, no tolls, or tolls in both directions. That is a 
local decision. It should be kept local, and I urge the adoption of 
this amendment.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York.
  The language in the bill before us provides a permanent authorization 
for the current tolling configuration for the Narrows Bridge in New 
York City. This is simply making permanent language approved by 
Congress every year since 1986 to provide for the one-way toll on the 
bridge to Staten Island.
  Should we go back to collecting tolls in both directions, Staten 
Islanders will be subjected to increased levels of carbon monoxide and 
other hazardous air pollutants from idling cars in residential areas as 
well as increased congestion.
  While I am certainly aware of the concerns of our colleague, 
Congressman Nadler, I also understand that this amendment will not 
solve his problem; and, therefore, I urge the House to defeat this 
amendment.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise 
in strong opposition to this amendment regarding the Verrazano-Narrows 
Bridge one-way toll. Let me remind all Members that we have already 
defeated this exact same amendment during the transportation 
appropriations bill earlier this year, and with good reason.
  Since 1986, tolls have been collected on this bridge connecting a 
Federal interstate in the westbound direction only. That is 9 years in 
a row in which such an attempt to reverse the toll collection has been 
defeated by Congress.
  Two, the current one-way toll situation has improved traffic flow, 
reduced pollution, and helped thousands of New York and New Jersey 
commuters get to work on time. That is one reason why Senator D'Amato 
and Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey had championed this issue in the 
U.S. Senate.
  Contrary to the arguments just made, the one-way toll is not 
responsible for Brooklyn nor Manhattan's growing traffic problems. 
Rather, it is perfectly obvious to anyone familiar with traffic in the 
area that the reconstruction of the Brooklyn-Queens and the Gowanus are 
responsible for the current traffic patterns.
  Lastly, we talk about a loophole and a funding loss. I would like my 
colleagues from the other boroughs to explain to me how they would 
react if their constituents were told that there was no other 
alternative for them to commute to another borough in the same city 
without being charged a $7 toll. Neither of them would stand for that, 
and the only thing they would ask is for some relief.
  Let me remind my colleagues that the $7 toll goes largely toward 
relieving the toll pressures felt on your subways, which I do not have 
on Staten Island. In the spirit of fairness, all we ask is that, while 
we pay exorbitant rates to get to your boroughs to subsidize your mass 
transit, that we be given a little bit more time to get to work in the 
morning. I think that is a pretty darned good deal. I think it is a 
rather extravagant deal.
  I commend the committee for including the current one-way toll system 
and recognizing how critically important this is to the tens of 
thousands of New York and New Jersey commuters who use the Verrazano-
Narrows Bridge.
  Again I say to my colleagues, as I have said before, if the traffic 
bothers them so much, then let us all join together and do what is 
really fair and do away with the toll on the Verrazano-Narrows bridge 
all together. Then we could all go home and say we did the right thing 
for New Yorkers.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of my colleague's amendment.
  The gentleman from New York and I represent several neighborhoods in 
lower Manhattan and Brooklyn that bear the brunt of the current wrong-
headed toll policy on the Verrazano Bridge.
  First of all, our colleagues from around the country should rightly 
ask why is Congress becoming involved in what is a local traffic 
dispute. That is a very good question, especially when we consider that 
year after year the mandate of the one-way toll from Brooklyn to Staten 
Island was put into place over the objections of our city and State 
governments and all but one of our city congressional representatives.
  Here is why the one-way toll continues to be a terrible idea. First, 
it wastes money. Toll evaders are ducking out of $7 million in lost 
revenue. This funding could improve New York's roads so that fewer tax 
dollars are needed for these roads in New York.

[[Page H 9298]]

  Second, it is an environmental disaster. The diverted traffic into my 
district has caused air pollution hot spots at which dangerous carbon 
monoxide exceed national standards. All this because residents of one 
particular section of our city and others from another State can save a 
few dollars a week by evading a toll.
  The one-way toll over the Verrazano has caused a great deal of damage 
that can never be undone, but let us end this folly and pass the Nadler 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to title III?


                    amendment offered by mr. nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 24.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Nadler: Page 97, after line 
     12, add the following:

     SEC. 354. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR REPAYMENT OF FUNDS.

       The Secretary shall extend by 2 years the deadline by which 
     the State of New York is required under section 103(e)(7) of 
     title 23, United States Code, to make a repayment to the 
     Highway Trust Fund in connection with Federal funds expended 
     to acquire property for a portion of Interstate Route 478 
     which was withdrawn from the Interstate System in accordance 
     with the provisions of section 103(e)(4) of such title.
       Conform the table of contents accordingly.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply extends a statutory 
deadline for New York either to repay funds spent to acquire rights-of-
way for the Westway project or to apply for a so-called payback waiver 
which would allow those funds to be spent current eligible projects.
  The amendment is revenue-neutral. It provides no new funds for New 
York City, does not draw on the highway trust fund, nor would a failure 
to extend this deadline make available any additional funds to the 
highway trust fund. However, failure to extend this deadline could 
result in these funds being misdirected away from the communities whose 
transportation needs they were expended to serve.
  This extension is temporary. It gives the State department of 
transportation 2 years to file a new application for a payback waiver 
in compliance with U.S. DOT guidance.
  This is money New York received as part of its share of 
transportation funding. We should be able to use this funding for its 
intended purpose--to serve the transportation needs of our community. 
However, unless this deadline is extended, a legal technicality, 
combined with bureaucratic wrangling, could place these important 
transportation initiatives in jeopardy.
  We fought long and hard to ensure that this money would be spent in 
the most productive and efficient manner possible. I ask my colleagues' 
assistance in straightening out this bureaucratic mess so that our 
local transportation authorities can move forward with serving the 
transportation needs of our city.
   Mr. Chairman, there is currently pending, or there was, I should 
say, a lawsuit. The settlement of that lawsuit bound the Governor of 
the State of New York and the mayor of the city of New York and the two 
comptrollers that the Governor would make a good faith application for 
a payback waiver. The previous administration in New York made such an 
application in 1990. It was clearly not in compliance with Federal 
guidelines. It was, therefore, rejected by the Federal Government and 
it is not regarded as a good faith application.
  The question is whether the State administration has met its legal 
mandate under the court order to make a good faith application. There 
is a lawsuit pending now, brought by the comptroller of the city 
against the State department of transportation. If the lawsuit is 
unsuccessful, this amendment will not be utilized. It will be 
irrelevant. If the lawsuit is successful, this amendment would give the 
administration of New York the opportunity beyond the expiration date 
on September 30, a 2-year opportunity, to meet its legal obligation and 
make the application for the payback waiver.
  As I say, Mr. Chairman, this has no fiscal implications for the 
highway trust fund or the Federal Government but simply extends the 
waiver so New York can settle the lawsuit, get its act together, and 
make the application for the waiver.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
which the State of New York and the city of New York are also opposed 
to.
  Earlier this year the New York State Department of Transportation 
chose to no longer waive the payback of funds for the Westway project. 
As recently as today, my office again confirmed the State's position on 
this issue, and that has not changed, equally with the city of New 
York.
  As I mentioned, during the committee markup of the National Highway 
Service bill, I hope to further address this issue with the State and 
the city of New York to determine whether a real solution can be worked 
out. In the meantime, however, on their behalf, I must rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise in 
support of the gentleman from New York's amendment and I yield to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, let me say I join the gentlewoman in hoping 
that this will be worked out, but simply would observe that at this 
time there is a lawsuit pending. It was brought about a week ago by the 
comptroller of the city of New York against the Governor of the State 
of New York on issues having to do with whether, in fact, the State has 
met its legal obligation under a previous court settlement under which 
it is bound to make an application of the payback waiver.
  If that lawsuit should be successful, they are going to be bound to 
make the application, but the deadline is September 30. If this is not 
worked out, if the lawsuit is unsuccessful, if the Governor is not 
compelled by the lawsuit to make an application or they decide that 
they are not going to, then this amendment is not necessary. But if the 
Governor should decide he wants to make the waiver, as these things are 
discussed in New York, or if the courts tell him he must, then this 
amendment will be necessary,
  All the amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is give extra time to the 
Governor. It does not bind the Governor. It is up to him and the 
lawsuit in New York. This gives not just the Governor, this gives the 
State 2 years to make the application if they want to. Currently, the 
Governor does not want to because he does not agree with the conditions 
the Federal Government would impose on that waiver. But he will either 
decide to do so or he will not, or he will be ordered by the courts to 
do so, or he will not. All this amendment says is give New York some 
extra time.
  So this does not prejudice anybody and it does not cost anybody any 
money. I suspect that the Governor is going to need this amendment, 
even if he does not think so now, if he should be ordered by the courts 
to make the application. Because if he is ordered to make the 
application, and there is no extra time, the court may very well tell 
him that he is bound by the conditions of the Federal Government but he 
does not get the money, or he does not get the positive aspects of it.

                              {time}  1600

  So I think that adoption of this amendment will simply give the State 
an additional time for the option, and it does not force them to do it. 
I would urge this be adopted.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  The amendment was rejected.
                    amendment offered by mr. shuster

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shuster: Page 97, add the 
     following new section:
     SEC. 356. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

       Notwithstanding title 23 U.S.C. 101(a), the projects 
     described in section 149(a)(62) of P.L. 100-17 and section 1 
     of P.L. 100-211 shall be eligible under title 23 U.S.C. 204.

  Mr. SHUSTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment we have worked out 

[[Page H 9299]]
  with the other side, noncontroversial. The amendment merely clarifies 
the eligibility of two park roads. I understand the leadership on the 
other side is prepared to accept it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, we have no problems with the amendment. We 
have reviewed it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. POSHARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2274, the 
National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. This is a sound piece 
of legislation, and I applaud my colleagues on the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee for helping bring this bipartisan bill to the 
floor.
  By passing this legislation quickly we will ensure that critical 
highway funds will be sent to the States. Within H.R. 2274 are 
provisions guaranteeing the States will receive $6.3 billion in fiscal 
year 1996 highway funding. This equates to approximately $255 million 
for the State of Illinois, and allows much-needed highway projects to 
continue without disruption of Federal funding.
  The National Highway System bill before us today lifts many 
burdensome mandates and Federal regulations that hinder progress of our 
Nation's highways. Contained within this bill are commonsense reforms 
to the hour-of-service regulations impacting farmers, and I fully 
support eliminating the penalty for noncompliance for motorcycle helmet 
use laws. The Illinois General Assembly has attempted three times to 
pass legislation complying with this Federal mandate. The people of 
Illinois do not support forced helmet use compliance, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this much-needed reform.
  I support taking the transportation trust funds off budget. I believe 
it is important to enact the trust fund legislation, and feel a 
separate vote on that issue will accomplish the goal of guaranteeing 
these funds are used for their intended purposes. I appreciate the 
efforts of Chairman Shuster to reach a workable compromise on this, and 
other contentious issues.
  Rural America is dependent on a sound and efficient network of roads. 
The National Highway System map we are designating today will play a 
vital role in America's infrastructure needs and will have a 
significant impact on the economy of my district. This map includes 
numerous routes through south-central Illinois which will help bolster 
the area's economy, and its ability to flourish. I want to particularly 
thank Joe McGuire of Wabash County and the other members of the Route 
One Committee for their tireless efforts in promoting the Route One 
Corridor as an integral part of the new National Highway System.
  The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 will shape the 
future of America's transportation system. Passage of this bill will 
ensure the States will receive their Federal highway funding, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this critical legislation.
                   amendment offered by mr. oberstar

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Oberstar: Page 97, add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 356. SAFETY REPORT.

       Not later than September 30, 1997, the Secretary of 
     Transportation, in cooperation with any state which raises 
     any speed limit in such state to a level above the level 
     permitted under section 154 of Title 23, United States Code, 
     as such section was in effect on September 15, 1995, shall 
     prepare and submit to the Congress a study of--
       (1) the costs to such state of deaths and injuries 
     resulting from motor vehicle crashes, and
       (2) the benefits associated with the repeal of national 
     maximum speed limit.

  Mr. OBERSTAR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, we have enjoyed working with the gentleman 
on this amendment, have studied it, and are willing to accept it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee for their 
cooperation, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] for his 
participation. This is simply a safety report.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mrs. lowey

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

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Lowey: At the end of title III of 
     the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 354. OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY INTOXICATED MINORS

       ``(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 161. National standard to prohibit the operation of 
       motor vehicles by intoxicated minors

       ``(a) Witholding of Apportionments for Non-compliance.--
       ``(1) Fiscal year 1999.--The Secretary shall withhold 5 
     percent of the amount required to be appropriated to any 
     State under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (5) of section 
     104(b) of October 1, 1998, if the State does not meet the 
     requirement of paragraph (3) on such date.
       ``(2) Thereafter.--The Secretary shall withhold 10 percent 
     (including any amounts withheld under paragraph (1)) of the 
     amount required to be apportioned to any State under each of 
     paragraphs (1), (3), and (5) of section 104(b) on October 1, 
     1999, and on October 1 of each fiscal year thereafter, if the 
     State does not meet the requirement of paragraph (3) on such 
     date.
       ``(3) Requirement.--A State meets the requirements of this 
     paragraph if the State has enacted and is enforcing a law 
     that makes unlawful throughout the State the operation of a 
     motor vehicle by an individual under the age of 21 who has a 
     blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent or greater.
       ``(b) Period of Availability; Effect of Compliance and 
     Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) Period of availability of withheld funds.--
       ``(A) Funds withheld on or before september 30, 2000.--Any 
     funds withheld under subsection (a) from apportionment to any 
     State on or before September 30, 2000, shall remain available 
     until the end of the third fiscal year following the fiscal 
     year for which such funds are authorized to be a 
     appropriated.
       ``(B) Funds withheld after september 30, 2000.--No funds 
     withheld under this section from apportionment to any State 
     after September 30, 2000, shall be available for 
     apportionment to such State.
       ``(2) Apportionment of withheld funds after compliance.--
     If, before the last day of the period of which funds withheld 
     under subsection (a) from apportionment are to remain 
     available for apportionment to State under paragraph (1), the 
     State meets the requirement of subsection (a)(3), the 
     Secretary shall, on the first day on which the State meets 
     such requirement, apportion to the State the funds withheld 
     under subsection (a) that remain available for apportionment 
     to the State.
       ``(3) Period of availability of subsequently apportioned 
     funds.--Any funds apportioned pursuant to paragraph (2) shall 
     remain available for expenditure until the end of the third 
     fiscal year following the fiscal year in which such funds are 
     so apportioned. Sums not obligated at the end of such period 
     shall lapse or, in the case of funds apportioned under 
     section 104(b)(5), shall lapse and be made available by the 
     Secretary for projects in accordance with section 118.
       ``(4) Effect of noncompliance.--If, at the end of the 
     period for which funds withheld under subsection (a) from 
     apportionment are available for apportionment to a State 
     under paragraph (1), the State does not meet the requirement 
     of subsection (a)(3), such funds shall lapse or, in the case 
     of funds withheld from apportionment under section 104(b)(5), 
     such funds shall lapse and be made available by the Secretary 
     for projects in accordance with section 118.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end of 
     the following:

``161. National standard to prohibit the operation of motor vehicles by 
              intoxicated minors.''.

       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I will include for the Record a letter from 
the Mothers Against Drunk Driving in support of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to close a loophole 
in the law that tragically claims thousands of lives each year on our 
Nation's 

[[Page H 9300]]
roadways: Drinking and driving by minors.
  While everyone knows that it is illegal to purchase alcohol if you 
are under 21 years of age, 23 States still permit underage drivers to 
drive legally with alcohol in their system as long as their blood 
alcohol content does not exceed the State's legal limit. So incredibly, 
in 23 States it is illegal for minors to purchase alcohol, it is 
illegal for them to publicly consume alcohol, but it is perfectly legal 
for them to drink and drive.
  This loophole still exists despite the clearly lethal consequences of 
teenagers who mix drinking and driving. What is the result? Each year 
between 2,000 and 5,000 youths, age 15 to 24, are killed in alcohol-
related crashing. In fact, according to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 40 percent of traffic fatalities involving 
underage drivers are alcohol related.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very straightforward issue. It is an issue of 
getting tough on a crime that kills thousands of Americans every year. 
Since it is illegal in every State for children under the ago of 21 to 
purchase and possess alcoholic beverages, it should also be illegal for 
children under 21 who have been drinking to drive.
  My amendment sends a very clear message. If you are under 21, 
consumption of alcohol combined with driving will be treated under 
State law as driving while intoxicated. End of story. And to any of my 
colleagues who think it might be okay for a teenager to have a beer or 
two and then drive, let us look at the facts.
  According to a 1991 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway 
Safety, male drivers between 16 and 21 who have a blood alcohol level 
of .01 to .04 are six times more likely to be in a fatal crash than 
drivers 25 years and older. Under my amendment, which was adopted by 
the Senate in June by a 2-to-1 margin, if a State fails to adopt a zero 
tolerance standard for drivers under 21 by the beginning of fiscal year 
1999, they would lose 5 percent of their Federal highway funds for that 
year. In subsequent years if that State has failed to act, if would 
lose 10 percent of its funds.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us today does not contain the zero 
tolerance measure adopted by the Senate. My amendment will make the 
House bill identical to the Senate in this life-saving measure.
  What can we expect from enactment of zero tolerance laws nationally? 
For the States that have adopted zero tolerance laws, Maine, New 
Mexico, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, they have experienced a 34-
percent decrease in traffic fatalities among young drivers at night. 
Let me repeat, a 34-percent decrease in traffic fatalities.
  If all States adopted zero tolerance laws, at least 375 fatal crashes 
would be prevented each year. Very simply, we are talking about saving 
lives. In designating the National Highway System of some 160,000 miles 
of road deemed to be of national significance, we in this Chamber have 
a responsibility to ensure the safe usage of those roads. Nothing is 
more detrimental to highway safety than drunk driving.
  The approach my amendment takes has saved lives before. Since passage 
in 1984 of the bipartisan uniform minimum drinking age, or 21 law, 
State which fail to adopt 21 as the minimum age for the purchase or 
public possession of alcohol beverage, face a withholding of a portion 
of their highway construction funding. As a result, each State has made 
21 the drinking age, and 1,000 American lives are saved each year.
  Mr. Chairman, drunk driving is a serious crime. The swift and certain 
way to achieve zero tolerance of this crime by minors is to pass this 
amendment. My amendment builds on the success of the 21 law passed by 
Congress in 1984. Please support this amendment. We cannot be too tough 
on drunk driving.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to adopt my amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason I rise in opposition to this amendment is 
because it is counterproductive. The committee strongly believes in 
very tough drunk driving incentives, and indeed in the committee, in 
the legislation before us, thanks to the leadership of the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Quinn], we have set .02 as the standard. But we have 
set it by incentives, not as a mandate. If there is anything we have 
learned around here with regard to mandates, it is that the hammer 
approach of sanctions has proven over the history of the Federal Aid to 
Highway Program to be unsuccessful. Incentives work much better.
  For example, since the motorcycle helmet provisions and associated 
penalties were enacted in ISTEA in 1991, only one State has enacted a 
motorcycle helmet law that did not have one prior to ISTEA. Twenty-five 
States ignored taking action and had the Federal penalty imposed upon 
them.
  States no longer respond positively to the heavy hand of the Federal 
Government mandates. They are speaking with their pocket-books. In 
fact, the irony here is that if we were to mandate a 5-percent 
reduction in funds, that simply means that the States would have less 
money to make the highways more safe. It is counterproductive.
  We have in this legislation very strong incentives. Indeed, we should 
support, therefore, what is in the legislation and oppose this 
counterproductive amendment. A sanction of this sort will likely do 
more harm. The amendment proposed, and I am sure that is not the 
gentlewoman's intention, but will likely do more harm to the .02 cause 
than the positive improvement to the current incentive grant program 
contained in this bill.
  So for those reasons, while I respect what the gentlewoman is 
attempting to do, it is counterproductive. Stick with the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
introduced by the gentlelady from New York [Mrs. Lowey] and I commend 
the gentlelady for her efforts in bringing this important issue to the 
floor for our consideration.
  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 40 
percent of traffic fatalities involving underage drivers are alcohol 
related. Given this telling statistic, it is beyond comprehension that 
although it is illegal in every State for persons under the age of 21 
to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages, less than half the States 
have enacted zero tolerance laws to prohibit minors from drinking and 
driving regardless of the driver's level of intoxication.
  This amendment strongly encourages the remaining States to adopt zero 
tolerance language by fiscal year 1998 or lose 5 percent of their 
Federal highway funding for that year. States which have adopted zero 
tolerance legislation have experienced a dramatic decrease in traffic 
fatalities among younger age drivers.
  Mr. Chairman, this measure seeks to encourage common sense. 
Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Lowey zero 
tolerance amendment in the hope that we can reduce the number of 
senseless tragedies that result from underage drinking and driving.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my strong support for the 
very important amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
Lowey].
  Teenagers simply should not be allowed to drink and drive. It 
endangers them and it risks the lives of everyone else who is on the 
road.
  Teenagers are the one group with the absolute least experience with 
alcohol and with driving--and with coping with the combination.
  This amendment simply continues the process we began in 1984 when we 
set sanctions for States that do not enact 21-year-old minimum drinking 
age statutes.
  Unfortunately, the way the law is now written, a teenager may not 
purchase alcohol but that same teenager may get a drink some other way 
and then hit the road--legally.
  The gentlewoman's amendment would change that by requiring States to 
adopt statutes reducing the legal 

[[Page H 9301]]
blood alcohol content for anyone under 21 who is driving to zero 
tolerance.
  The amendment would use the same sanctions that were used in 1984 for 
the 21-year-old minimum drinking age.
  States would face the loss of 5 percent of their highway funds if 
they do not enact zero tolerance statutes after 1 year.
  The States would face a 10 percent penalty if the zero tolerance 
statutes are not adopted after the second year.
  Mr. Chairman, the 21-year-old minimum drinking age statute was 
successful. It reduced fatalities and it eliminated the blood borders 
that existed between States with different minimum drinking ages.
  But far too many of our young people still die on our Nation's 
highways and there are far too many alcohol-related crashes.
  In 1993 alone, more than 2,300 teenagers died in alcohol-related 
crashes. That is 2,300 young people in a single year.
  The 12 States that currently have lower alcohol limits for under-21 
drivers have had a 20-percent reduction in alcohol-related crashes.
  It is estimated that at least 375 alcohol-related crashes would be 
prevented each year if all States adopted zero tolerance laws.
  This zero-tolerance amendment is absolutely vital for making our 
Nation's highways safer and for reducing alcohol related accidents.
  This zero-tolerance amendment is common sense and good government.
  It uses a modest sanction to ensure that our young people will live 
longer and the roads will be safer for everyone.
  Let's put this house in support of ending teenage drinking and 
driving.
  I commend the gentlewoman from New York for offering this important 
amendment and I urge its passage.
                              {time}  1615

  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
   Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the gentlewoman from New York 
for her efforts to deter underage drinking and driving. While we share 
the same concerns, I must speak against her amendment, because it goes 
against everything we are trying to change about Washington.
  My objection to the Lowey amendment is found in its approach, not in 
its substance. The gentlewoman's amendment will penalize the States by 
withholding 5 percent of their highway funds if they do not comply.
  This is a States rights issue. At a time when we are trying to 
empower the States to govern themselves, we do not need to send them 
edicts and unfunded mandates from Washington that will withhold much 
needed highway funds if they do not comply.
  This bill is a States rights bill. In the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee we started the trend to give rights back to 
the States by eliminating the national maximum speed limit and 
mandatory helmet laws. This amendment flies in the face of what we are 
trying to do here.
  This very important safety provision of zero tolerance for underage 
drinking and driving has already been included in H.R. 2274. This 
provision, though, offers incentives to the States who comply, rather 
than penalizing them for not doing so.
  Earlier this year I joined with my esteemed colleague from New York, 
the Reverend Floyd Flake, to work on a bill designed to reduce drinking 
and driving among younger drivers.
  It is a fact that traffic fatalities are the leading cause of death 
for those under the age of 21 and of those fatalities 40 percent are 
alcohol related. In addition, studies have shown that teenage driving 
is impaired at lower blood alcohol concentrations than that of an 
adult.
  Zero tolerance laws that have been adopted in various States across 
the country have proven to reduce the incidence of fatal crashes among 
teenagers.
  In closing, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster and Subcommittee 
Chairman Petri for including my zero tolerance provision in this 
legislation.
  Vote ``yes'' for zero tolerance of underage drinking and driving.
  And vote ``yes'' for States rights by voting ``no'' on the Lowey 
amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to support 
the Lowey amendment, because I think the Lowey amendment does what very 
often we like to do in our own families with our children, and which I 
think most American parents like to do with their children. That is, 
they like to be able to send a clear and unambiguous message, because 
very often we understand that young children need clarity in that 
message, and ambiguity very often confuses and causes misjudgments on 
their part.
  What we have here is a situation where the government is sending two 
different messages. We clearly recognize that it is illegal, and with 
the support of the parents of this country, we have made it illegal for 
young people to drink under the age of 21. However, we say, on the 
other hand, ``If you have been drinking and then you get into an 
automobile and drive, and you are under the influence, we can tolerate 
that, and you will not be punished or some other action taken.''
  So we are sending two different messages. It is illegal to drink, but 
if you do not get caught, but you are later caught in an automobile, 
actions are not going to be taken for your drinking.
  That is a message that we should not be sending. The ambiguity of 
that message we should not be sending, and that is not a message that 
parents, I believe, want their government sending to young people. Yes, 
it is illegal, but if you do not get caught, it could be OK if you are 
in the right set of circumstances.
  That is not what we do. We do not do this with marijuana, we do not 
do this with drugs. We do not say, You can use marijuana and then if 
you get caught driving under the influence, if you appear to be OK, you 
are released. We do not do that. I think we have to make it very clear 
here that parents send a message that they do not want their young 
people to use alcohol, and we ought not to allow this ambiguity.
  Many of the arguments used against zero tolerance are the arguments 
that were used against it when we decided last year that we would have 
zero tolerance in our schools for people who bring weapons to schools. 
There are a lot of hard cases, a lot of difficult cases, but the fact 
is schools do not need to have weapons in them. People should not bring 
weapons to school. We needed to send out right messages. We heard that 
some States had done it, some were going to do it, some States did not 
like being told to do it. The fact is today all States have it. We have 
zero tolerance. We have sent a very clear message: Bring a gun to 
school, you are out for a year. No ambiguities. Bring a gun to school, 
you are out for a year.
  What we are saying here, climb into a car, if you have been drinking 
and you are stopped for some reason, the State is going to make a 
determination about the price. This is not about sending edicts. This 
is not about sending mandates. This is about sending a set of values 
that we share with our constituents, we share them as parents, as 
grandparents, as people who are concerned with children. These are 
values that we share, and what we are saying is, Let us get on with it. 
Let us get down to the point where we can provide this kind of 
protection for our children. This is a very nonintrusive way. We are 
not saying how you have to mete out the penalties, we are not saying 
they cannot send them to education or counseling, what have you. All of 
that is available for communities and States to decide.
  What we are saying is, as a national legislature we no longer want to 
tolerate the ambiguity and the danger, the danger that that ambiguity 
places our children in on a nightly and daily basis, and other people 
in on a nightly and daily basis on the roads of America.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong, strong support of the 
amendment. We did this in 1984, and it worked. Let me tell the Members 
why.
  In the Washington, DC, area and in my congressional district, we 
basically 

[[Page H 9302]]
had a situation whereby we had a blood border. We had young men and 
women from my congressional district in McLean and places like that 
going into Washington, DC, where the drinking age was 18, purchasing 
alcohol, coming out and getting killed on the George Washington 
Parkway. The number of deaths on the George Washington Parkway was 
amazing. One night I was coming back and there were police there, and I 
stopped and pulled over to the side, and there was a young lady under a 
blanket who had just died, had been in a collision, just south of 123.
  When we did this in 1984, we saved a lot of live. I would tell the 
Members, as a father, a mother, a grandparent, or as somebody who has 
young children, think in terms of what this means to your family. I as 
a father of five children can still remember at nights listening to the 
gravel on the driveway, waiting for my children to come home, to know 
that they were safe. The most disturbing call
 that anyone can possibly get must be that telephone call, and I thank 
the good Lord that we have not gotten it, that telephone call at 12 or 
1 o'clock to say your son or your daughter has been killed in an 
accident somewhere because of drunk driving, or things like that.

  I do not want to put mandates on the States on all these other 
things. I stand with the body on most other issues. But on the safety 
issues and on this blood alcohol issue, I think this is one of the 
exceptions we should make. I would just ask, frankly, those of you out 
there who have never experienced what I have never experienced, we may 
not have experienced it because of the work that was done in this body 
in 1984. That language that we passed may have kept us from getting a 
telephone call, and we may not even know why we did not get the 
telephone call, but that may be why we did not get the telephone call. 
I would hope that the chairman would accept this language.
  I would hope that something like this could come in, and maybe 5 
percent is not it, maybe it should be 10 or 3, but somehow we know it 
worked in 1984, and we know it saved thousands of lives. We do not want 
the pain and agony in anyone's else's life. I strongly urge that it 
will work this time, and I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to rise today in support of this 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] to H.R. 
2274, the National Highway System Designation Act.
  This amendment will help save the lives of scores of young people and 
will make all our Nation's highway's safer. The amendment by the 
gentlewoman from New York strongly encourages States to implement zero-
tolerance alcohol standards for drivers under the age of 21. It is the 
current law in every State that you must be at least 21 years of age to 
purchase or consume alcohol, and this amendment certainly is consistent 
with that law.
  Furthermore, this amendment will be very effective, as States will 
lose a percentage of their basic Federal highway funds for each year, 
after October 1, 1998, that zero-tolerance laws are not in effect.
  Did you know that according to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration [NHTSA], 40 percent of traffic deaths involving underage 
drivers were alcohol related?
  Did you know that in 1994 2,200 people were killed because minors 
were drinking and driving. And further that 1,600 of these people were 
teenagers themselves?
  Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that the Lowey amendment has already 
been overwhelmingly adopted in the Senate version of this legislation 
and is supported by the National Association of Governors' Highway 
Safety Representatives and Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
  I know what a widespread problem underage drinking and driving is. I 
have sponsored my own legislation, the High Risk Drivers Act of 1995, 
on this subject, and can remember the blood border days when youths 
would drive, many under the influence of alcohol, from States with 
higher drinking ages to places where they could more easily consume and 
buy alcohol.
  The Lowey amendment will be an important step in combating drunk 
driving and, as a matter of public safety and concern for our children 
and grandchildren, should be accepted as part of H.R. 2274. Mr. 
Chairman, I applaud the efforts of the gentlewoman from New York and 
urge passage of her amendment.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am one of the gentlemen from Kentucky, and I mention 
that at the beginning of my remarks because distilled spirits are very 
important to the State of Kentucky, but I rise in support of this bill. 
I rise, knowing that the Distilled Spirits Council has come out with 
model legislation, Mr. Chairman, that the Distilled Spirits Council 
which represents distilleries across America, has used in State after 
State to encourage them to enact just the legislation we are discussing 
here today.
  We need to make sure that young people understand, it is not a 
question of taking a little drink, it is not a question of being below 
a certain alcohol blood content level. It is a question of not getting 
behind the wheel of a car if you are drinking at all. If a young person 
up to age 21 is not allowed to drink or possess alcohol, what sense 
does it make, what sense does it make not to make sure they suffer the 
penalties of a drunk driving arrest?.
  I may also be rising today because the day after tomorrow, on Friday, 
the September 22 I will be taking my then 16-year-old son to get this 
driver's license, his driver's permit. He turns 16 the day after 
tomorrow. When I take him to get that permit, I am going to be doing it 
with the same fear and the same concern that we have heard from other 
speakers; not necessarily that he will be driving while drinking, but 
rather, that he is going to be out on those roads, and that he could be 
at risk; that he could be at risk because another young person who does 
not understand zero tolerance is on the road.
  We have seen a bipartisan, a truly bipartisan, support for this 
amendment here today. I think it should tell us something. It should 
tell us that a yes vote is what makes sense for the amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Let me add one final issue, the issue of States rights. We are 
turning States rights on its head when we use that issue. I say that as 
one who has just come into this Chamber twice in a row on recorded 
votes and said that yes, States probably should have the right to set 
their own speed limits. I apologize to the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Rahall], but I did vote against his amendments, because States do 
have different sets of circumstances that allow them and would justify 
different speed limits. We should not make that decision here in 
Washington.
  However, I want to tell the Members, there is no different 
circumstance in any State in this Union that should allow a person 
under 21 to drive with one drop of alcohol in his or her blood. I 
support the amendment, and I urge its passage.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. Mr. 
Chairman, we have all, unfortunately, been touched by the deadly 
consequences of drunk drivers on our Nation's roads. We all struggle as 
Members of the human community and as legislators to figure out what we 
can do possibly to lower the chances of drunk driving.
  How do we send that message? Today this amendment is one very 
important piece of sending that message. If a teenager is caught 
drinking and driving, even at very low blood alcohol levels, and he or 
she is penalized, chances are they will think twice next time. That is 
a chance, Mr. Chairman, we are obligated to take. Let me also comment 
on the States rights issues. We all struggle over the role of the 
Federal Government, and the heavy-handedness of it. Quite frankly, 
however, efforts to stop drunk driving and efforts to save lives on the 
road should reach across city, State, and Federal lines. This must be a 
united effort, and as Members of the Federal Government, as 
representatives elected to protect and promote safety, we cannot 
abdicate that role.
  Again, let me just thank the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] 
and commend her for bringing a very important amendment to a bill that 
is 99 percent there. It is a great national highway systems bill. With 
the gentlewoman's amendment adopted, it will certainly add to it.
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Lowey amendment 
that would encourage States to enact a zero tolerance law to close a 
loophole in the National Minimum Drinking Age Law. Mr. Chairman, that 
law prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from consuming 

[[Page H 9303]]
alcohol, yet does not prohibit them from driving after drinking. I ask 
my colleagues, does this loophole make sense? Certainly not. Zero 
tolerance laws make it illegal for underage persons to drink any amount 
of alcohol and then drive. As of 1994, 24 States had zero tolerance 
laws which make it illegal for an underage person to drink and drive 
with a .02 blood alcohol level or less. Less than one beer would put 
the average young adult over the limit.
  Mr. Chairman, too many Americans have been personally affected by the 
tragedy of drunk driving. They have lost a family member, relative, or 
friend. While the 21-year-old drinking age has made significant strides 
in reducing these tragedies, we must not stop there. Mr. Chairman, we 
owe it to all members of society--particularly our children--to close 
this deadly loophole.
  Support this important amendment.

                              {time}  1630

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey amendment which 
would require States to enact zero tolerance laws that make it illegal 
for minors to drink and drive.
  In one year alone, more than 22,000 people were killed in drunk 
driving accidents. Ten percent of those killed, more than 2,200, lost 
their lives in crashes involving alcohol and minors. We can do 
something about this national tragedy.
  Data from the National Highway Safety Transportation Administration 
[NHSTA] indicates that legislative efforts to reduce drunk driving are 
achieving some success. In all, 24 States have adopted zero tolerance 
laws, and the alcohol-related crashes among minors in all of those 
States is down by 10 to 20 percent. In four of those States--Maine, New 
Mexico, North Carolina, and Wisconsin--the traffic fatalities among 
young drivers at night has decreased by 34 percent.
  Even at blood alcohol concentrations as low as 0.02 percent, alcohol 
affects driving ability and the likelihood of a crash. Under the Lowey 
amendment teenagers who take just one drink and get behind the wheel of 
a car would be in violation of the law and would lose their licenses 
for several months.
  During the spring, I attended a high school assembly in Bethesda, MD, 
and listened to a young man from California, Brandon Silvera, tell an 
auditorium full of teenagers why it doesn't pay to drink and drive. 
Brandon had been an athlete and an outstanding student. The summer 
prior to his senior year in high school, he was looking forward to the 
coming football season and making choices about which college he would 
attend. One evening, after attending several parties where he had a few 
drinks, he fell asleep at the wheel. His car veered off the road and he 
crashed into a tree. He was just a short distance from his home.
  Brandon is now in his twenties. He has difficulty walking and his 
speech is slurred. Nevertheless, he travels around the country with his 
father urging teenagers not to drink and drive. Perhaps a zero 
tolerance law would have prevented the accident that changed this young 
man's life.
  In terms of States rights, young people may well drive from 1 State 
to another where there are different laws.
  A recent survey revealed that 80 percent of the young people in the 
Washington area had their first drink at age 14. Teenagers in Maryland 
and Virginia are more likely to drink than those in the city of 
Washington. The Washington area has more than one million underage 
children, and many seem to have no problem buying or getting their 
hands on alcohol. Parents surveyed believe their children's friends 
drink and drive, but few parents think their own children drink and 
drive.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in saying, enough, to the senseless 
and preventable slaughter on our highways by supporting the Lowey 
amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Rahall] for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, it is true that H.R. 2274 purports to provide an 
incentive to States to adopt zero tolerance by making .02 BAC a basic 
criteria. Unfortunately, the incentive provided is minimal at best and 
will not accomplish our goal. My amendment is the only one with teeth. 
The bill says if the States adopt .02 BAC in addition to other safety 
measures, they will get an incentive grant.
  Well, let us read the fine print. Right now the section 410 program 
says to the States, ``undertake the following countermeasures to drunk 
driving and we will give you X amount of dollars.'' The trouble is when 
the States have complied with the criteria outlined in the 410 program, 
they do not get what they are promised, they get about half of what 
they were promised. So if we use the incentive grant as outlined in the 
bill, we are saying to the States, pass zero tolerance, and we promise 
not to give you any more of the money we already are not giving you.
  What kind of an incentive is that? In 1984, we could have used 
incentive grants to encourage the States to pass 21 as the drinking 
age. Had we done that, 21 would not be the law of the land. It would be 
the law in part of the land. How many more of our children--and as a 
mother of three, I feel this very deeply--would have died as a result?
  The key word in the Uniform Minimum Drinking Act of 1984 was uniform. 
We wanted all the States on a uniform basis to adopt 21 as the drinking 
age in a specified period of time. To those who favor the carrot over 
the stick, let us be honest. If we adopt my amendment, we will get zero 
tolerance in every State. We will get it soon. And as was the case with 
21, no State will experience the withholding of any highway funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I met with members of MADD in my district, in front of 
Mamaroneck High School just this week. I met with members of SADD, 
Students Against Drunk Driving. I spoke with the Mamaroneck police 
chief and his officers. I spoke with a father who lost his daughter in 
a drunk driving accident. No one in Mamaroneck, Mr. Chairman, spoke of 
States rights. They spoke instead of the moral imperative of passing 
drunk driving laws.
  Too many Americans have been personally affected by the tragedy of 
drunk driving. Too many Americans have died. As parents, we owe it to 
our children to close this deadly loophole. Let us do everything we can 
to ensure that no parent will be awakened in the middle of the night 
with the awful news that their child has been killed in a drunk driving 
accident.
  Mr. Chairman, we just cannot be too tough on drunk driving. I urge my 
colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 203, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 678]

                               AYES--223

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Burr
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce

[[Page H 9304]]

     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Tate
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--203

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kim
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Obey
     Olver
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schroeder
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Fattah
     Kennedy (MA)
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Roukema
     Sisisky
     Solomon
     Tucker

                              {time}  1659

  Messrs. POMEROY, OLVER, TEJEDA, HILLIARD, Ms. BROWN of Florida, and 
Mrs. CLAYTON changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HUTCHINSON, RICHARDSON, ROSE, GOODLING, BRYANT of Tennessee, 
Mrs. KELLY, and Ms. RIVERS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                              {time}  1700

  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the National Highway System bill, 
which reaffirms the Federal Government's commitment to building and 
maintaining the finest highway transportation system in the world.
  Before I begin, I would like to say a few words about my colleague 
and mentor, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], who will soon 
retire from his Chamber. It is altogether fitting that the man who came 
to this body to ``build bridges between people and over rivers'' that 
we are completing a highway bill in his final days in Congress and that 
we are doing so in the spirit of comity and bipartisanship, the 
governing principals of Norm Mineta. I will sincerely miss his guidance 
and friendship.
  The National Highway System [NHS] bill we consider today is very much 
the product of Mr. Mineta's extensive work over the years at the 
Transportation Committee. This bill builds on the 90,000-mile 
Interstate System by adding an additional 70,000 miles of roads to be 
included in the new highway system. The idea behind the new NHS is to 
connect the interstate system and other roads of national significance 
with, airports, sea and river ports, train depots, and commercial and 
downtown areas.
  The fifth district of Missouri, in the geographic center of the 
Nation and with a reputation as a transportation hub for the country, 
will benefit greatly from passage of this bill. The measure includes 
the important designation of Interstate 35, a superhighway for trade 
connecting Canada, the United States, and Mexico. In addition, the NHS 
bill includes such roads as Jackson County Roadway, U.S. 50 and 
Missouri 291.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill will help position the United States to enter 
the next century with the finest transportation system in the world and 
provide us with the ability to move goods and people in a more safe, 
efficient, and cost-effective manner. I encourage our colleagues to 
support this very important bipartisan effort.
  Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
in a colloquy.
  I would like to clarify that section 351 provides adequate safeguards 
to ensure no adverse impact on safety.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LONGLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I say to my good friend, section 351 
provides no exemption shall go into effect for 6 months. It also 
provides the Secretary may modify, revoke, or not have the exemption go 
into effect if he finds the exemption is not in the public interest and 
would have a significant adverse impact on safety.
  Mr. LONGLEY. I thank the gentleman. I am committed to insuring the 
safety of commercial motor vehicles.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I share the gentleman's concern.


                     amendment offered by ms. furse

  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Furse: At the end of title III, 
     insert the following:
       Sec. 354. The Secretary shall conduct a study to evaluate 
     the effectiveness on reducing drunk driving of laws enacted 
     in the states which allow a health care provider who treats 
     an individual involved in a vehicular accident to report the 
     blood alcohol level, if known, of such individual to the 
     local law enforcement agency which has jurisdiction over the 
     accident site if the blood alcohol concentration level 
     exceeds the maximum level permitted under State law.

  Ms. FURSE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  (Ms. FURSE asked and was given permission to revise and extent her 
remarks.)
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, drunk driving continues to be a serious 
health problem in America. According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 
over 950,000 people are killed or injured on our highways each year as 
a result of drunk driving. According to a study in my district, more 
than 86 percent of drunk drivers go through emergency rooms but are 
never charged in their offenses.
  We can change these tragic figures. I want to tell you a story of a 
dedicated emergency room nurse from my district. Her name is Carol 
Bononno, and she was fed up with seeing the same drunk drivers come 
into her trauma unit time after time, and almost without exception 
these drunk drivers were not held accountable for their actions.

[[Page H 9305]]

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. FURSE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have examined the gentlewoman's 
amendment. I think it is a good amendment, and I support it. Our 
committee supports it.
  Ms. FURSE. I thank the gentleman very much for that. I want to 
commend Ms. Carol Bononno for her work in doing this wonderful act. I 
thank the gentleman, and I thank the ranking member, too, for his 
kindness for accepting this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, drunk driving continues to be a serious health problem 
in America. According to a study conducted in my district, more than 86 
percent of drunk drivers who go through emergency rooms are never 
charged for their offenses. In 1992, 41 percent of drivers killed in 
car crashes had alcohol in their system. According to Mothers Against 
Drunk Driving, over 950,000 people are killed or injured on our 
highways each year as a result of drunk drivers.
  We can change this tragedy. I want to tell you the story of a 
dedicated emergency room nurse from my district, Carol Bononno, who was 
fed up with seeing the same drunk drivers come into her trauma unit 
time and time again. Almost without exception, these drunk drivers were 
not held accountable for their actions. Carol was frustrated that while 
there are laws for reporting serious public health problems such as 
child and elder abuse, there are none for drunk driving. Carol fought 
for 5 years to change Oregon's law. This year, after that long battle, 
she finally won. Carol proves that one person can make a difference. 
Carol's work will save the lives of Oregonians.
  Blood alcohol reporting is nothing new, and has significant, 
widespread support. Currently, 29 States allow reporting in some 
fashion. My amendment is supported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. In 
fact, a survey from the March 1992 edition of the American College of 
Emergency Room Physicians' Annals of Emergency Medicine said that 78 
percent of emergency room physicians agree with blood alcohol 
reporting. Local police from my district helped draft this bill, and 
they say that these blood alcohol levels are often the critical piece 
of evidence necessary to help hold drunk drivers accountable. We need 
to encourage all States to examine this issue, and take this important 
step to
 give police the information they need to stop emergency rooms from 
being safe houses for drunk drivers.

  Let me briefly state what my bill, H.R. 1982, does not do: It does 
not change the constitutional protections afforded all Americans 
regarding non consensual blood withdrawals. It does not require 
mandatory reporting of blood alcohol levels, although States are free 
to go further if they wish. It does not turn providers into police 
because these alcohol levels are obtained in the regular course of 
providing care. And it does not open health care providers to 
litigation because it has an immunity clause. But it does seek to solve 
a huge problem--drunk driving.
  My amendment builds on the excellent alcohol provisions of H.R. 2274, 
and is a first step to promoting the goals of H.R. 1982. It calls for a 
study to evaluate the effectiveness of reducing drunk driving in States 
where blood alcohol reporting is permitted. This would be the first 
study of its kind, and it is my guess that it will be landmark study in 
the fight against drunk driving.
  Importantly, it will mean that we are on the road to keeping 86 
percent of drunk drivers slipping through the cracks of our laws. This 
amendment will mean that more emergency room nurses like Carol Bonnono 
will be able to help make our streets a safer place.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  The amendment was agreed to.
                   amendment offered by mr. beilenson

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment
  The text of the amendment is a follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Beilenson: Page 59, after line 7, 
     insert the following:
       (c) Guarantee and Warranty Clauses.--Section 112 of title 
     23, United State Code, 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.

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for 10 minutes to speak on behalf of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for granting me 
the additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, at the outset, may I say that I am always somewhat 
amused, perhaps bemused is a better word, by the self-congratulatory 
oratory surrounding the highway bills we have here on the floor of the 
House of Representatives, all the accolades that we hear each year for 
our highway system and how it is the best in the world.
  May I respectfully suggest that we stop burying our heads in the sand 
or perhaps it would be better to say burying our heads in the asphalt.
  We may have the biggest highway system in the world. The truth of the 
matter is it is not the best. Anyone who has ever driven for any length 
of time on European highways and roads will be astonished at the 
difference in the quality between their roads and our roads. You can 
drive for hours in the old cities in the continent of Europe or the 
highways in the countryside and not experience the kinds of problems 
you experience here every day and everywhere in the United States.
  Why? Because in most European countries they build their roads right 
in the first place, and so they have many fewer problems than we with 
maintaining them, and they are not forever repairing and repaving them 
as we are continually having to do here in the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering today proposes to do 
something about improving the quality of our highways. It would allow, 
not mandate, but merely allow State highway departments to use 
guarantee and warranty clauses on Federal aid highway construction 
contracts. Many Members are familiar with this very modest proposal and 
the base majority have given it overwhelming support twice during the 
past 4 years. When the House passed the ISTEA bill in October 1991, an 
amendment very much like this one passed by a vote of 400 to 26. It was 
replaced in the final bill by a GAO audit study reviewing the States' 
experiences with using warranties on highway contracts. This very same 
amendment, same as today's amendment, was agreed to last year by the 
House as a part of the national highway systems bill that we passed 
last year.
  At that time, the chairman of the committee, my friend, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Mineta], then ranking member and now the 
distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], 
and the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee with 
jurisdiction, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] all agreed to this identical 
language.
  I think what was good enough for last year's bill designating the 
national highway system would be good enough for this legislation as 
well.
  As most Members know, Mr. Chairman, Federal highway dollars have 
traditionally been reserved for construction rather than maintenance, 
and the Federal Highway Administration has generally prohibited States 
from requiring any warranties from contractors when awarding federally 
funded contracts. The rationale for this regulation is warranty might 
result in Federal participation in maintenance costs which, until 
recently, has been prohibited. The effect of this policy is we often 
reward the use of the cheapest, lowest-quality materials on highway 
construction and prevent States from building quality performance 
standards into their construction contracts.

[[Page H 9306]]

  Transportation officials have, since 1981, under Mr. Reagan's 
administration and then again in 1985 under Mr. Bush's administration, 
sought to change this outdated policy, which Members should know has no 
statutory mandate. Those officials have contended the introduction of 
contractor guarantees into the bidding process might spur innovation, 
superior quality in the use of the kind of advanced technology other 
countries are already aggressively taking advantage of. Building 
better-quality roads should be a hallmark of our highway system, and 
simply giving States permission to hold contractors accountable for 
their work must be part of our national plan.
  In Europe, where highway contracts are awarded on the basis of a 
combination of costs, quality and a contractor's 3-to-5-year full 
replacement guarantee, roads traditionally cost somewhat more to 
construct. They last twice as long as they do here in the United 
States. Sounder sub-bases, thicker pavements, advanced polymer 
additives, and stronger asphalt produce highways smoother and quieter 
and are stubbornly resistant to ruts, cracks, and potholes. European 
roads can handle heavier loads than permitted on U.S. highways.
  Meanwhile, our own strict low-bid 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. This is 
an inflexible, unwise, and shortsighted policy that costs taxpayers 
billions of dollars in unnecessary highway repair bills and results in 
intolerable traffic delays.
  It should come as no surprise to us that while Government 
expenditures for roads have doubled over the past decade, fully half of 
all roads in America are rated in fair to poor condition, and as the 
Office of Technology Assessment reported back in 1991, 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 original capital cost, doubling the total expense 
of the highway project.
  As we embark on a multibillion-dollar investment in our Nation's 
highway system, 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, make our 
transportation infrastructure more durable and efficient.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that permitting States to demand a 
guarantee of a minimum quality standard of quality on highway projects 
would by itself cure our country's infrastructure ills. But Americans 
should be outraged that in an era of huge budget deficits, when we are 
cutting back drastically in so many other areas of domestic spending, 
that we have failed to fulfill our responsibility to see that Federal 
highway money is well spent.
  I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to several recent 
developments that deal with this specific topic. Five years ago the 
Federal Highway Administration initiated a special experimental project 
to evaluate innovative contracting practices such as the use of 
warranty clauses. Eight State highway departments have taken advantage 
of this experiment to improve quality and increase contractor 
accountability. State officials have found the use of warranty 
requirements valuable and have found that warranted projects are higher 
quality and helped in getting contractors to repair projects 
expeditiously.
  Second, in September 1994, the GAO issued a report on the use 
warranties and other ways to improve quality of our Nation's highways 
as required by ISTEA. That report recommended the Federal Highway 
Administration encourage States to experiment with and to try 
warranties and to clarify the regulatory ban on use of warranties if it 
does not apply to non-Federal projects.
  Finally, last month, the Federal Highway Administration issued an 
interim final rule to permit greater use of warranties on Federal aid 
highway construction contracts. The main reason for this change from 
the existing policy is the original rationale for the prohibition no 
longer exists. ISTEA set up an interstate maintenance funding category 
for the preventive maintenance activities, which are now eligible for 
Federal funds. In addition, through its 5 years of experience with 
warranty clauses under the experimental project, the administration has 
determined warranties may, indeed, enhance the quality of Federal aid 
construction projects.
  I strongly believe this amendment is important to encourage the use 
of practices that will improve 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.

  This amendment fits very neatly into the new congressional 
leadership's plans for returning power to the States and decentralizing 
government. If you believe States should have more flexibility, as the 
majority of the Members on the floor of the House have been saying all 
year, then you should favor this amendment.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, my friend over there, the chairman of the 
committee, having said all of this, Mr. Chairman, I do feel very 
strongly, as my friend from Pennsylvania and my other friends on the 
committee know, I feel very strong about this issue. I am, in fact, 
greatly encouraged by the interim final rule which was recently 
promulgated by the Federal Highway Administration that would, as the 
FHWA says in its summary description of the proposed rule, and I quote 
them here, ``would permit a greater use of warranties on Federal aid 
highway construction projects within prescribed limits.''

                              {time}  1715

  I commend the FHWA for proposing this change, and I and others 
encourage them to stick by their guns this time. Similar, although not 
so far-reaching rules changes have been proposed in the past, only to 
fail at being adopted because of opposition in most cases because of 
some within the industry whose interests perhaps would have been 
threatened, or they thought their interests would have been threatened 
by these proposed changes.
  But I am hopeful, and there is now strong support even among some in 
the industry itself for these proposed changes. I think that therefore 
we ought to give the FHWA the chance to take this useful step on their 
own. Consequently, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster], my chairman, and my friend here from West Virginia, I ask 
unanimous consent at this time that I may be permitted to withdraw my 
amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEILENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear that it is 
the gentleman's leadership which has brought about very substantial 
improvements. We have in this legislation for the new national highway 
system requirements for life cycle costing and value engineering, 
thanks to the leadership of the gentleman.
  As the gentleman has indicated, Federal highways is issuing a 
rulemaking or revising the regulations. So we want to continue working 
with the gentleman, and I salute him for his efforts and for his 
willingness to withdraw the amendment so that we can try to work things 
out.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind 
comments.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEILENSON. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the 
comments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]. There is 
more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak. The gentleman has 
certainly been dedicated to this issue and making sure that the public 
gets more bang out of their buck, so to speak, for money that is spent 
on highway projects and ensuring the quality of that type of 
construction.
  The Chairman has referred to how we have addressed those concerns in 
this 

[[Page H 9307]]
NHS bill by the technique of value engineering analysis for NHS 
projects. Also in this bill there is a requirement that States utilize 
life cycle costing for certain NHS projects. Under this particular 
technique, all costs are expected to occur over a highway's usable life 
analyzed rather than just their initial cost.
  So we will continue to work with the gentleman from California whose 
dedication and diligence I commend very highly.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to 
thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from West 
Virginia for their kind and helpful remarks and for the good work that 
they have done in this bill, although personally I do not think it goes 
far enough. In fact, the good things in the bill which are quite true 
are there, but they do not hold people responsible and accountable the 
way these guarantees would if we finally could get to them.
  Finally, I want to say something to my friends on the committee. if 
the FHWA fails or is unable to proceed with this very sensible and, I 
think, overdue reform within the few months, we shall be back with this 
next year when the ISTEA bill is before us. We will at that time push 
forward with this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the gentleman will agree with me that no 
transportation safety issue is more important than the safe passage of 
our children.
  Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentlewoman will yield, I certainly do agree.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, countless children are at risk of serious 
injuries or death because their parents are unaware that some seatbelt 
systems are incompatible with child safety seats. Last year more than 
700 children under age 4 died in car accidents and 80,000 more were 
injured.Denver recently set up a safety seat checkpoint. Of the 150 
parents who brought in their cars, 148 out of 150 had improperly 
installed their child safety seat.
  I think that tells us that perhaps we need to develop some short-term 
educational needs that can begin saving lives immediately by increasing 
proper child restraint use.
  Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, the 
gentlewoman, I think, will be pleased to note that section 402 of the 
safety grant program addresses this issue. Section 402 addresses the 
guidelines to encourage the proper use of child restraint systems.
  Mrs. MORELLA. I appreciate that. However, Mr. Chairman, I feel that 
more specific measures should be encouraged. I would like to share some 
recommendations from the blue ribbon panel on child passenger safety 
established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
  The panel recommends that child passenger safety education programs 
should be set up in every State. This includes telephone lines for 
consumers with questions, training for child passenger safety 
specialists, and one designated staff person in each State highway 
office that is fully trained in child passenger safety.
  The panel also recommends that NHTSA should establish an electronic 
bulletin board system on child passenger safety to enable information 
on compatibility problems be shared among State highway safety offices.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentlewoman that this is 
indeed a necessary and worthwhile project. We will very seriously 
consider these recommendations made by the blue ribbon panel on child 
safety restraints.
  Mrs. MORELLA. I thank the gentleman very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 
urge my colleagues to support the National Highway System Designation 
Act.
             amendment offered by mr. miller of california

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 22.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California: Page 97, 
     after line 12, add the following:

     SEC. 354. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT OF SAFETY BONUSES.

       Amounts in the Highway Trust Fund established by section 
     9503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1996, and non-Federal 
     funds required by law as a condition for the receipt of such 
     amounts, may not be expended for the payment of a safety 
     bonus to a contractor.
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I introduce this amendment 
and present it to the body to raise an issue that I think is of serious 
concern that has been raised recently in the press in Los Angeles, 
basically in the Los Angeles Times. That is the payment of safety 
bonuses to the contractors on the Los Angeles Metro project where we 
see a situation where already some nearly $3 million has been paid in 
safety bonuses to contractors on that project. Those contractors are in 
fact eligible for millions of dollars and more in safety bonuses.
  Now, we all agree about trying to achieve a goal of the safe 
workplace, and it has been a very high priority of mine throughout my 
congressional career, and I am a strong believer in that. But what 
upsets me in this situation is that we see safety bonuses being paid 
and they are paid to contractors whose safety record is not very good 
at all. In fact, as we know, this subway system has been plagued with a 
series of problems that not only have been embarrassing but also, 
tragically, have been dangerous to the workers in that area and, in 
some cases, even to the surrounding property owners.
  I notice in the story that they say, despite the higher than average 
injury rates on some of the contracts, the agency, in this case the 
Metropolitan Transit Authority, says that they believe that the 
project's overall record is no worse, no worse, than any other major 
project nationwide.
  Then why did we pay the bonuses for them if we only got a project 
that was no worse? The fact is, what we find out in this story is that 
the people that have received, or the companies and the consortiums 
that have received, these bonuses, in the case of Tudor Selby, I 
believe it is, and Perini, received $1.3 million in bonuses. But their 
comparison of them to the U.S. injury rate, they are 138 percent 
higher.
  Then it goes on to Mass Electric, 113 percent higher, and they have 
$300,000 in safety bonuses.
  My concern is that I do not think that these safety bonuses are all 
that much related to safety. My concern is sometimes maybe these are 
used to kind of lubricate the process to keep the job going and cover 
up for some of the mistakes, or what have you, that are going on, 
higher than the ordinary course of business decisions that have been 
made.
  I just do not think that when transit dollars are as hard to come by 
as they are today in this Congress, and we know the demand that this 
committee has placed on it every year from people who want additional 
transit dollars, I introduced this amendment because I would like to 
believe that the committee would take a look at this.
  I do not know the right solution. I introduced the amendment as a 
cutoff of funds, or not a cutoff, but saying you could in the use of 
Federal dollars, and I am informed that perhaps maybe Federal dollars 
are not being used, but we know once you combine the pool, money is 
fungible. And I am just concerned, one, very much so, that we are not 
buying an incremental value of safety important to the workers on this 
project; but, secondly, if the local transportation agency, whether it 
is the Bay Area Rapid Transit district in my area or the Los Angeles 
district, if they want to engage in this, maybe they ought to do that 
with their taxpayer or ratepayer dollars. And that should be a local 
decision.
  If they want to think that, they want to spend this kind of money in 
L.A., that does not appear as a block, to greater safety, then maybe 
the ratepayers and the local taxpayers ought to be in on that decision. 
But they should not just be using a pool of money that is supposed to 
be buying 

[[Page H 9308]]
miles of tunnel or miles of track or cars for these systems, and 
dishing it out in this fashion.
  So I do not expect to press this today, but I would just hope that 
the committee would give some attention to this matter, because I think 
it goes to the credibility of our authorizing process and it clearly 
goes to the scarcity of transit dollars.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Shuster and by unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of 
California was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that, while 
we oppose this amendment today, we commend him for focusing on this. 
There have been some real violations of this; there have been some 
serious problems. I want to assure the gentleman that we are 
instructing our investigative staff to get into this and to work with 
his staff on this, because we think that these problems should be dealt 
with.
  Now, the problem with the amendment, of course, is it prohibits all 
of us--and I understand there are some very, very great success 
stories. BART, I understand, is a success story. WMATA here in 
Washington is a success story where they have actually reduced costs 
and improved safety. I salute the gentleman for calling this to our 
attention, and I assure him that we will focus on it with our 
investigators and his staff.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
those assurances. I want to say to the gentleman how much I appreciate 
that, because I know the work load and the demands and the requests 
that this committee gets from all of the Members of this Congress. I 
appreciate his response to this amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California 
for yielding. I certainly salute him for his ever-constant vigilance of 
good, sound, public policy. We have just been made aware of this in the 
last couple of days. To my knowledge, we have not been aware of the 
problem with these safety bonuses before. As I understand, it has come 
to the public attention through a Los Angeles Times article this past 
Sunday.
  I understand the gentleman's concern about Los Angeles, and there may 
or may not be a problem there. As I say, it has just come to our 
attention. We have not completely gathered all of that information 
there, and I commend the chairman for what he has said. I know that 
just recently I have been made aware that there is a safety bonus 
program in place in the bay area.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is 
correct.
  Mr. RAHALL. So, are there any problems there that we do not know 
about?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Not that I know of. I thank the gentleman, 
and I would just say that I appreciate his comments. I would say that 
if we are buying incremental safety, if we are buying a value here, we 
are helping the workers, then maybe this program works. But if we are 
not doing that, then I think we are perpetrating a fraud on the workers 
and probably on the taxpayers.
  I think that maybe people may be more diligent about it if it came 
out of their local--out of the fare box, so to speak, or out of their 
local tax rate, than if they just thought maybe the Federal Government 
was contributing half to the safety bonus programs. I do not know. That 
is for the committee, and that is why I am not pressing the amendment, 
because I do not know that this is a solution. And I do not want to 
paint every other transit district with the same problems that have 
been highlighted in this article.
  But if the committee would give some attention to this, and the 
Chairman has been nice enough to ensure that, I appreciate it, and I 
thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1730


                     amendment offered by mr. ward

  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ward: Strike section 349 of the 
     bill and conform the table of contents accordingly.

  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike the language in 
this bill which takes the motorcycle-helmet requirement that has been 
imposed by the Federal Government out of statutory law or out of our 
statutes. That is to say we have in our current statutes the 
requirement that States pass a law requiring the wearing of motorcycle 
helmets within their State or face a loss of Federal dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I firmly and deeply believe that motorcycle helmets 
save lives, that motorcycle helmets reduce the overall medical expense 
which is borne by the people of this country in one way or another 
through increased insurance premiums, through increased health 
expenditures, or increased local hospital expenditures. In one way or 
another we pay for the people who choose to ride a motorcycle without a 
motorcycle helmet.
  Mr. Chairman, I move passage of the amendment.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which would strike from H.R. 
2274 the repeal of the helmet penalties.
  This year, 25 States lost to safety programs over $51 million in 
highway funds because they did not have universal helmet laws. If we 
adopt this amendment and do not repeal the penalties, this year and in 
the future that amount will double--that means that $100 million in 
highway construction and maintenance projects will not be able to go 
forward in these 25 States. I am sure that many of these foregone 
projects would go a long way toward improving safety.
  Many penalized States are particularly frustrated with this loss of 
funds since many have fatality rates which are actually lower than many 
States which do have such laws. These States--through motorcycle rider 
education programs or other types of safety programs--have good 
motorcycle safety records.
  Yet because they have chosen not to adopt the one method prescribed 
in Washington, these States are losing highway funds. And States with 
fatality rates far worse are not losing highway funds. This does not 
make sense.
  I also oppose this amendment because I do not believe the Federal 
Government should be trying to impose its will on the States regarding 
this issue. Even without these penalties, a State can adopt a universal 
helmet law if it so chooses, and half of the States have done so. They 
don't need us telling them what to do.
  As the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation has heard repeatedly 
over the past several years, States do view this as a Federal mandate.
  And yet I must question the effectiveness of this mandate. Since 
ISTEA was enacted in 1991, only one State has passed the required law. 
This is not a good track record. Finally, I do not believe it is right 
or fair to try to blame the current problems of Medicaid or other 
health care problems on motorcycle riders. There are many activities 
people knowingly do which expose them to some health risk--using drugs, 
exposure to the sun, dangerous sports, overeating--and yet those people 
have not been subjected to the kind of rhetoric we hear on this issue.
  We should repeal these penalties which take away much needed highway 
construction funds from fully half of all the States, which do not take 
into account other safety initiatives of the States, and have not 
proven to be effective. I urge the House to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The helmet issue is another that is often described as a States' 
rights issue. Yet again, I must correct the record. When one State 
repeals its requirement for motorcycle riders to wear helmets, we all 
pay.
  This is true for speed limits, and it is true for helmets.
  Up to 80 percent of acute and long-term care is paid for with tax 
dollars. And helmets 

[[Page H 9309]]
are 67 percent effective in preventing brain injury, exactly the type 
of injury that needs expensive, long-term care.
  Most riders who incur these injuries are young people. That means the 
long-term care for such riders who incur severe injuries can last for 
20, 30, or even 40 years. And, in most cases, public sources, such as 
Medicaid, will be paying the bills.
  This body is currently considering reforming the Medicaid Program. If 
we care about controlling costs, we must care about preventing the 
lessening the severity of injuries in motorcycle crashes.
  The best way to do that is to encourage States to require all riders 
to wear helmets. Current law does not force States to pass helmet laws. 
If they choose not to, a small portion of certain highway funds is 
directed to safety programs.
  This is a reasonable approach that over time saves taxpayers millions 
of dollars.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hansen, Chairman 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. 2274) to 
amend title 23, United States Code, to designate the National Highway 
System, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 224, 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 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 passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 419, 
nays 7, not voting 8, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 679]

                               YEAS--419

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--7

     Beilenson
     Dellums
     Gibbons
     Jacobs
     Johnston
     Orton
     Waters

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Kennedy (MA)
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Roukema
     Sisisky
     Taylor (NC)
     Tucker
     Volkmer

                              {time}  1753

  Mr. GIBBONS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BACHUS, FATTAH, and FOGLIETTA changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________