[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 184 (Saturday, November 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13319-H13325]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 440, NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT OF 
                                  1995

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of both the majority and the 
minority, I ask unanimous consent that the conference report to 
accompany the Senate bill (S. 440) to amend title 23, United States 
Code, to provide for the designation of the National Highway System, 
and for other purposes, be considered as agreed to.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
November 15, 1995, at page H12459.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I do not 
object to the gentleman's request.
  Mr. Speaker, I first want to take this opportunity to thank all of 
the conferees, particularly my good friend from Pennsylvania, Chairman 
Shuster, my distinguished colleague and friend from West Virginia, Mr. 
Rahall, and the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Petri, and all of our 
committee members for their long, hard work on this important 
legislation. All have worked hard to make the necessary compromises to 
move this critical legislation forward on a bipartisan basis. The 
result of all of our efforts is a better conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, most importantly, the conference report that we consider 
today designates the National Highway System, or NHS. The NHS is the 
backbone of our Nation's transportation system. It consists of 161,000 
miles of Interstate highways and other heavily traveled roads. Although 
the NHS comprises only four percent of our Nation's total highway 
mileage, 9 out of 10 Americans live within 5 miles of an NHS road and 
it carries 40 percent of all highway travel and 75 percent of all 
trucking commerce.
  With passage of this conference report and designation of the NHS, 
$5.4 billion of critical transportation funds will now be released to 
the States. In the next fiscal year, an additional $6.5 billion of NHS 
funds will be distributed nationwide. At a time when our infrastructure 
is crumbling, this legislation provides critical funds for badly needed 
transportation projects.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report also includes several other 
important changes to the landmark Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act and other transportation laws. It provides additional 
funding through rescissions to address the section 1003 budget problem, 


[[Page H 13320]]
authorizes funds for the National Driver Register and the National 
Recreational Trails programs, and withholds funds from States that do 
not prohibit underage drinking and driving by adopting a zero-tolerance 
law.
  While this Conference Report does take these positive steps and 
others, I nevertheless have grave reservations about several 
controversial anti-safety provisions also included in the legislation. 
These provisions eliminate important Federal safety standards, 
including speed limits and motorcycle helmet requirements.
  I know that in the 104th Congress there is a strong desire to turn 
safety responsibilities over to the States; however, our highway system 
is a national system. The highways we fund for the National Highway 
System are widely used by drivers who do not live in the State in which 
the highway is located. We at the national level bear a substantial 
responsibility for what happens on America's highways. We impose the 
taxes that fund the construction of these highways and we set the 
conditions under which the National Highway System is constructed and 
operated. We should not step away from our responsibility of ensuring 
that those very same highways are safe.
  Unfortunately the conference has decided to eliminate important 
Federal safety standards which have saved hundreds of thousands of 
lives.
  Regrettably, the conference report repeals the national speed limit 
which the National Academy of Sciences estimates has saved 40,000 to 
80,000 lives in the past two decades.
  The conference report allows States to have no speed limit at all, if 
they so choose. In fact, in nine states the speed limit repealer will 
automatically result in higher speed limits, increasing in some States 
to 70 miles per hour, in others to 75, and in one State to no speed 
limit at all.

  Although today's cars are much safer than those of 20 years ago, it 
is people, and not cars, who cause accidents, and no matter what is 
said, speed kills. Speed is already a contributing factor in one-third 
of all fatal highway crashes, killing about 1,000 Americans every month 
and costing the Nation a staggering $24 billion each year. This speed 
limit repealer will result in more Americans killed and taxpayer 
dollars wasted. The Department of Transportation estimates that the 
speed limit repeal included in this conference agreement will kill an 
additional 6,400 Americans each year, at an additional cost of nearly 
$20 billion annually.
  This legislation also terminates an important safety program which 
encourages States to enact motorcycle helmet laws. Again, the data show 
that, without question, motorcycle helmets help prevent deaths and 
serious head injuries. Head injuries are the leading cause of death in 
motorcycle crashes, and an unhelmeted rider is 40 percent more likely 
to incur a fatal head injury than one who wears a helmet, and more than 
80 percent of all motorcycle crashes result in injury or death to 
riders.
  When 27 States previously repealed or weakened their helmet laws, the 
increase in motorcycle fatalities was four times the increased rate of 
motorcycle registrations. Those States that have helmet laws show 20 to 
40 percent lower fatality rates than States that do not have helmet 
laws. That 20 to 40 percent lower fatality rate means that, in those 
States without helmet laws, we could have saved 350 to 700 lives. I 
strongly support continuation of a Federal law which can save that many 
lives.
  I cannot accept the argument that if you wear a helmet, the helmet is 
likely to contribute to an accident. In 900 motorcycle accidents 
investigated in the city of Los Angeles, 40 percent of the riders were 
helmeted; in none of these cases did the helmet contribute to the 
accident by restricting the hearing or vision of the rider.
  Helmets reduce injury severity; they reduce the likelihood of death. 
When you are pitched from a motorcycle or from a bicycle, the 
probability is that your head goes down first. I know; I have had an 
accident riding a bicycle. A car pulling illegally from a curb and 
headed in the wrong direction came toward my bike, smacked me at 20 
miles an hour. I went right into the windshield of the automobile and 
shattered the windshield with my head, but I was wearing a helmet. It 
not only saved my life but saved me from severe, possibly disabling 
injury.
  I think everybody who rides a motorcycle or a bicycle ought to, in 
the name of common sense, wear a helmet. More so, in the name of all 
those who love them, all those who are in their family, all those who 
are in their community, and all those who are going to pay the bills if 
they wind up a permanent disabled case.
  I am also deeply concerned with those provisions of the conference 
report which depart from uniform commercial motor vehicle and driver 
safety standards by waiving key safety regulations for several groups. 
Under the conference report, weekly on-duty time limits are waived for 
drivers who transport water well drilling rigs, transport construction 
materials and equipment, operate utility service vehicles, or deliver 
home heating oil, the latter being a provision which was not in either 
bill. In addition, under the conference report, no maximum driving or 
on-duty time limits would apply to drivers who transport agricultural 
commodities or farm supplies during planting and harvesting seasons. 
Many snowplow operators would be exempt from the requirement to obtain 
a commercial driver's license for operating vehicles that weigh more 
than 26,000 pounds.

  The conference report also creates a program encouraging DOT to waive 
additional safety regulations for commercial vehicles weighing less 
than 26,000 pounds.
  Mr. Speaker, we need uniform safety standards, not waivers for 
special interests. This report opens floodgates that will not be easily 
closed. As soon as one group gets an exemption, other groups will argue 
that they should have similar exemptions.
  Moreover, these waivers are a significant departure from the long-
term effort to create uniform commercial motor vehicle and driver 
safety regulations. The public cares little about whether a truck 
transports agricultural supplies or home heating oil or any other 
commodity, intrastate or interstate. The public has consistently 
indicated that as far as they are concerned, a truck is a truck and all 
trucks should operate safely.
  In addition, an administrative process already exists whereby DOT, 
the agency we created to ensure safety, may waive regulations, if such 
a waiver would be consistent with safety. The fact is that the groups 
that requested the waivers in the conference report could not convince 
DOT that they would be safe. That's why they came to Congress.
  Finally, DOT is currently in the midst of millions of dollars of 
research on the very complex topic of driver fatigue. The bulk of the 
research will be complete by 1996. We should not grant blanket 
statutory waivers without considering the results of these studies.
  Mr. Speaker, again, these provisions will seriously threaten our 
Nation's highway safety. While I endorse the conference report overall, 
there are numerous antisafety provisions in it which I cannot and will 
not support.
  In that regard, I do want to call attention to a provision of this 
legislation which I developed to ensure that we will have the ability 
to oversee the effects of the safety cutbacks. Under my amendment, the 
Secretary of Transportation, in cooperation with any State that raises 
its speed limit, will study the costs to the State of death and 
injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes, and the benefits, if 
any, associated with the repeal of the national speed limit.
  The Secretary's report will include information on the costs of motor 
vehicle crashes both before and after any change in the speed limit. It 
will determine whether these crashes are caused by excess speed, the 
use of alcohol, or other safety factors, and whether seat belts and 
motorcycle helmets were used by those involved in the crashes. In this 
way, within 2 years, we can review what we've done. I hope that my 
fears of growing numbers of highway fatalities and injuries are 
unfounded. If they are not--and this study will address this--we can 
revisit these issues and make the changes needed to save American 
lives.
  Again, although I am seriously troubled by the antisafety provisions 
of this legislation, I believe that this legislation to develop 
America's highways should go forward. I will vote in support of the 
conference report.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, the passage of the National Highway System 
Designation Act of 1995 is one of the most important pieces of 
legislation in the 104th Congress. This legislation will directly 
affect the lives of generations of Americans to come.
  The NHS is the centerpiece of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 [ISTEA]. It will be to the 21st century what the 
interstate was to the 20th century: The backbone of our Nation's 
transportation system and the surface upon which goods and services are 
carried safely and efficiently across our country.
  I would like to thank all the House and Senate Conferees for their 
efforts to bring this conference report to resolution. Special thanks 
go to Tim Petri, the Surface Transportation Subcommittee chairman, Jim 
Oberstar, the committee's ranking Republican member, and Nick Rahall, 
the ranking Republican member on the subcommittee, for their 
contributions. I would also like to thank my Senate colleagues, 
especially Senator Warner, Senator Chafee, and Senator Baucus for their 
tireless efforts to produce this conference report.
  I want to also commend the Department of Transportation and the 
Federal Highway Administration, especially Administrator Rodney Slater, 
for their excellent work in working with the States and proposing the 
NHS map we approve today.

[[Page H 13321]]

  This conference report is the result of a total bipartisan effort. 
The conference report is truly a compromise. There are provisions that 
I do not support, but in the spirit of compromise and to ensure the 
passage of the conference report I accepted these provisions.
  The NHS bill passed the House by an overwhelming 419 to 7 vote on 
September 21.
  The passage of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 
will release $5.7 billion in fiscal year 1996 and $6.5 billion in 
fiscal year 1997 in national highway system and interstate maintenance 
funds to the States. It is important to emphasize that this money is 
not from any new taxes. This $12.2 billion is money already authorized 
from the highway trust fund.
  The conference report will approve 160,955 miles on the National 
Highway System. These miles were identified through a comprehensive and 
cooperative process between States, localities, and the Secretary.
  The NHS, made up of the Interstate System and the other most 
important highways in the country, is the backbone of the Nation's 
transportation system. While comprising only 4.1 percent of the 
Nation's total highway mileage, it will carry 40 percent of all highway 
travel, 75 percent of all trucking commerce, and 80 percent of all 
tourist travel.
  America's reliance on its highways is at an all time high. The vast 
majority of personal trips are over highways. Seventy-eight percent of 
the value of all freight is transported by trucks over its roads. Over 
75 percent of all the cities and towns in America rely exclusively on 
trucks for freight delivery.
  The NHS will extend the benefits of the Interstate System to areas of 
the United States not currently served by interstate highways. Overall, 
the NHS will carry 42 percent of rural and 40 percent of all urban 
travel miles. Ninety-five of all U.S. businesses and 90 percent of all 
U.S. households will be located within 5 miles of an NHS route. While 
the Interstate System serves many urban areas with populations over 
50,000 and most State capitals, the NHS will serve them all.
  Let me review some of the highlights of the bill.
  After enactment of this bill, modifications to the NHS will be made 
by the Secretary and the States. Intermodal connectors will be subject 
to a one-time congressional approval; however, those that meet FHWA 
criteria will be eligible for NHS funds in the interim period prior to 
congressional approval.
  The NHS conference report also addresses the budget shortfall as a 
result of the application of 1003(C) of ISTEA. The conference report 
provides $513 million in funding to the States from rescissions of 
budget authority previously made available. These funds are distributed 
to all States based on the ISTEA formula. In addition, the conference 
report provides States with additional flexibility to access 
unobligated balances in order to move forward on their highest surface 
transportation priorities.
  The conference report contains several provisions that provide the 
States relief from burdensome Federal mandates and penalties. The 
national maximum speed limit, crumb rubber use requirements and 
penalties, metric signage requirements, motorcycle helmet law 
requirements and penalties are repealed, and management systems 
requirements and penalties are suspended.
  I voted against the repeal of the national maximum speed limit, but, 
both the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to repeal the national 
maximum speed limit. However, I am pleased that the conference report 
modifies the provision by allowing for a 10-day grace period after 
enactment, before the Federal repeal takes effect. During this period, 
State legislatures that are in session on the date of enactment may 
take action to set appropriate speed limits for their States. In States 
where the legislature is not in session on the date of enactment, a 
Governor may extend the effective date of the repeal until 60 days 
after such time as the legislature has convened so that the State has 
sufficient time to consider the appropriate speed limits for its State. 
I trust that State legislatures will act thoughtfully and deliberately 
and make the right decision for their States; taking into consideration 
the demographics, landscape, and road design of their individual 
States.
  The conference report provides new authority for States and the FHWA 
to build new partnerships with the private sector through innovative 
financing mechanisms. These include: Establishment of a 10-State pilot 
project for State infrastructure banks; modifications to the advance 
construction program to permit use of advance construction beyond the 
authorization period; eligibility of Federal funds for preventive 
maintenance activities; expansion of use of Federal funds for bond or 
debt financing costs; use of donated materials or services towards the 
non-Federal share; expansion of the toll loan program to projects with 
a dedicated revenue source; and increasing the Federal share of toll 
projects.
  The conference report contains no new projects. Some previously 
authorized projects are corrected or redefined to permit States to use 
existing funds for revised priorities.
  The conference report clarifies that in designating scenic byways, 
States may exclude from such designations segments of highway that are 
inconsistent with the State's criteria for designating scenic byways 
and may permit the erection of new billboards on those segments.
  Scenic byways are State programs. It is appropriate that a State make 
the decision as to whether certain segments that are not consistent 
with its criteria should be excluded from its scenic byways 
designations, not the Federal Government. The authority of the FHWA is 
limited to determining whether the segmentation has a reasonable basis 
and that the State's action is not solely intended to evade Federal 
requirements.
  The conference report contains a provision that allows signs, 
displays, and devices identifying and announcing free motorist aid call 
boxes and their sponsorship signs to be located on the call box and the 
call box post, in rights-of-way of NHS roads.
  A FHWA memorandum dated November 14, 1995 states:

       There is no relationship between sections 131(f) and (i) 
     and the proposed section 111(c) because the call box signs 
     are a very specific type of informational sign created in a 
     section of title 23 completely separate from the Highway 
     Beautification Act. Statutory construction would require the 
     FHWA to treat the call box signs created under section 111 as 
     entirely separate from any provision of section 131. Thus, 
     the new category of signs cannot be affected by the Highway 
     Beautification Act or by FHWA's Highway Beautification Act 
     regulations.

  The conference report provides relief to States from the Clean Air 
Act's enhanced inspection and maintenance program and transportation 
conformity requirements.
  I would like to recognize the efforts of the American Road and 
Transportation Builders Association in bringing the suit to address the 
conformity issue, the settlement of which will be ultimately 
accomplished in this conference report.
  The conference report contains a safety provision to help deter drunk 
driving among minors. States are encouraged to enact laws which make 
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 
considered to be driving under the influence or driving while 
intoxicated, or risk loss of Federal-aid highway funds. This provision 
will help protect our youth, make our highways safer, and reduce 
fatalities.
  The conference report provides for common- sense motor carrier 
deregulation through establishment of a Commercial Motor Vehicle 
Regulatory Relief and Safety Pilot Program and exemptions 
from burdensome regulations on certain motor carriers.

  The Small Delivery Truck Pilot Program has been significantly 
tightened since the passage by the House. The Secretary has been given 
greater latitude to set criteria for entry into the program, the 
carriers participating in the program must only use top drivers, the 
ability to terminate carriers participating in the program has been 
strengthened and the Secretary may set interim criteria for operating 
the program.
  These changes have been put into place after working with the 
Department, industry, safety groups, and consumer advocates. All sides 
have had a voice in crafting this provision.
  The motor carrier hours of service exemptions for water well 
drillers, farmers, and construction and utility vehicles have been 
limited and the conference report has clarified that the States may 
continue to regulate intrastate commerce in these areas even more 
stringently than Federal requirements.
  The conference report contains a provision to repeal the 
preemployment alcohol-testing requirement for all modes of 
transportation. Nothing in this provision is intended to limit the 
flexibility provided in the Federal motor carrier safety regulations 
that allow motor carriers to rely on postaccident drug or alcohol tests 
conducted by Government officials and obtained by the employer as a way 
to meet the motor carriers' testing requirement.
  The Natcher Bridge, spanning the Ohio River between Owensboro, KY, 
and Indiana is a critical transportation project to the Second District 
of Kentucky. This bridge has been funded through appropriations and is 
not partially complete. It currently has approaches and piers but no 
roadway or structure. Completing this bridge is a priority.
  This conference report makes $5.7 billion in fiscal year 1996 funds 
and $6.5 billion in fiscal year 1997 funds available to the States. It 
also provides additional allocations from rescissions and funding 
flexibility for States to fund high priority projects. For Kentucky, 
the bill makes $51.0 million in fiscal year 1996 and $58.2 million in 
fiscal year 1997 NHS funds available to Kentucky. Since the bridge is 
on the NHS, Kentucky may use all of these funds to complete the bridge.
  This conference report also rescinds $513 million in highway program 
funds that are no 

[[Page H 13322]]
longer viable or in priority programs. Kentucky will receive a 
distribution of $7.9 million from these funds, which may be used for 
any high-priority project such as the Natcher Bridge.
  Finally, to permit States to fund high-priority projects despite a 
budget cut of 13 percent this year due to an obscure provision of law 
known as section 1003, this conference report provides flexibility to 
the States to reprogram old, unobligated balances of accrued funds. 
Kentucky can reprogram $27.4 million, all of which could be used on the 
bridge.
  I would like to work with the gentleman from Kentucky over the next 2 
years to ensure that high priority projects such as the Natcher Bridge 
are considered whenever Congress considers highway funding, including 
the reauthorization of ISTEA.
  Lock and dam #4 is a critical transportation project in my district 
that requires $4 million in funding to complete the bridge. This 
conference report provides the State of Arkansas with $7 million total 
in additional funding from rescissions. These funds are on top of 
Arkansas' regular Federal highway funding. Arkansas may use the funds 
to complete any high priority project in the State, including 
completing lock and dam #4.
  The 1994 Northridge, CA earthquake was centered in the 25th 
Congressional District and highlighted the transportation shortfalls 
evident in several communities in north Los Angeles County. Other than 
Northridge itself, the community which probably suffered the most was 
the city of Santa Clarita, which was flooded with traffic following the 
destruction of the freeway interchange between I-5 and State route 14. 
I understand that even in normal circumstances, existing highways in 
Santa Clarita are overcrowded since the system of roads currently in 
place was designed over 30 years ago. Since that time, Santa Clarita 
has been among the fastest growing cities in California and a major 
traffic problem in the area.
  I hope that in the future, we may look to address two transportation 
needs in the area that have been brought to my attention, the 
interchanges around I-5 and Route 126. Both of these routes are on the 
NHS and if these two interchanges and adjacent roadways require major 
improvements and I hope to work with the gentleman from California to 
help him address these needs.
  At this time, I would like to recognize a leader in the highway 
community for over 40 years, Les Lamm, who passed away on November 1. 
Les Lamm was elected president of the Highway Users Federation on March 
1, 1986 and served in that capacity until January 15, 1995. Les was 
counselor to the president of the Highway Users Federation until his 
death. A civil engineering graduate of Norwich University in Vermont, 
he completed postgraduate studies at Harvard University, MIT, and the 
University of Maryland. Les came to the federation after a 31-year 
career with FHWA, and its forerunner, the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads. 
In 1973, he became FHWA's executive Director, the Agency's top career 
professional. In 1982, President Reagan appointed Mr. Lamm FHWA Deputy 
Administrator. Between 1973 and 1986, he worked with six U.S. 
Secretaries of Transportation, helping direct more than $100 billion in 
Federal aid to highway programs.

  Les was an incorporator of the Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Society of 
America and served as its president.
  He was a noted authority on highway transportation, and was a member 
of the board of governors of the International Public Works Federation; 
a member of the executive committee of the Transportation Research 
Board; a director of the International Road Federation; a director of 
the National Commission Against Drunk Driving; a director of the Travel 
Industry Association of America; a director of the Road Information 
Program; on the advisory board of the Northwestern University Traffic 
Institute; president of the Alumni Association of Norwich University; 
and was active in many other transportation-related professional 
organizations. He has received more than 50 awards for professional 
excellence from a wide range of private and public sector 
organizations.
  We will all miss this fine gentleman. It is appropriate that we honor 
him today, for he would have been very proud to see the National 
Highway System, one of his greatest legacies, enacted into law.
  I want to thank the superb staff on the Surface Transportation 
Subcommittee. They worked with great diligence and dedication to help 
produce this conference report. They are: Jack Schenendorf, Bob 
Bergman, Becky Weber, Roger Nober, Debbie Gebhardt, Peter Loughlin, 
Aadam Tsao and Linda Scott on the majority side, and David Heymsfeld, 
Sante Esposito, Ken House, Rosalyn Millman, Ward McCarragher, Dara 
Schlieker and Jim Zoia on the minority side.
  I am pleased to bring this critical legislation to the House for 
approval and then promptly send it to the President for his signature. 
I urge all my colleagues to give them their full fledged support to 
this historic legislation.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this conference report to 
accompany S. 440, the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. 
I want to acknowledge the efforts and contributions of all the House 
and Senate conferees, as well as the critical assistance of Rodney 
Slater, the Federal Highway administrator, who was ready at all hours 
of the day to meet and give his advice and counsel as the conferees 
worked on this conference report these past several weeks.
  S. 440 will designate 160,000 miles of our Nation's most important 
roads as the National Highway System. A dedicated source of Federal 
funds, authorized at $3.6 billion annually, is reserved for these 
roads. In addition, approval of this conference report will lead to the 
release of over $6 billion in National Highway System and Interstate 
maintenance funds which have been withheld from the States since 
October 1 of this year.
  S. 440 also sets up a process for the designation and approval of 
intermodel connectors--roads connecting the NHS to ports, airports, 
rail yards and the like. Until these connectors can be initially 
approved by the Congress, interim eligibility provisions are included. 
The interim eligibility provision refers to a project to construct an 
intermodal connector. The definition of the word construct is already 
defined very broadly in title 23. It is our intention that the word 
construct in this section is to be read very broadly to include not 
only construction and reconstruction projects, but also projects 
involving resurfacing. Restoration, rehabilitation, and operational 
improvements, such as the installation of traffic surveillance and 
control equipment and computerized signal systems.
  This conference report accomplishes much more than the designation of 
the National Highway System. Various Federal mandates and penalties are 
repealed, including the repeal of motorcycle helmet mandates and 
associated penalties, the repeal of the national maximum speed limit 
and associated penalties, and the repeal of the mandated use of crumb 
rubber in asphalt and associated penalties.
  The conference report contains many other worthy provisions to 
improve our Nation's Federal highway program and to facilitate the 
construction of transportation projects across the country. The 
conference report, like the House bill which was passed in September, 
does not contain any new funding for any specific highway project.
  Although I am generally pleased with this conference report, there is 
one major disappointment. The Senate refused to agree to the House 
provision which would have utilized over $500 million in excess and 
available budget authority in the minimum allocation program to restore 
funding reductions that every State will experience as a result of 
section 1003 of ISTEA.
  Unfortunately, the Senate chose to offer up this budget authority as 
savings for the purposes of budget reconciliation. I believe the 
decision of the House to utilize this budget authority in a way that 
would not increase the deficit but would have benefited the highway 
program was a better course to take. I regret the Senate did not agree.
  Nevertheless, this conference report is worthy of the support of 
every member of the house and I urge my colleagues to approve the 
conference report and approve the National Highway System.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
conference report for S. 440, the National Highway System Designation 
Act of 1995. This bill designates approximately 161,000 miles of 
highways in the United States as components of the National Highway 
System [NHS] and includes $6.5 billion for States to use for Federal 
highways. Under the bill's formula, Florida would receive approximately 
$234 million a year.
  I want to thank Congressman Rahall, Chairman Shuster, Congressman 
Oberstar, Congressman Petri, as well as former Chairman Norman Mineta 
for helping us to find Federal funds to replace Jacksonville's Fuller 
Warren Bridge. These funds will be combined with State and local 
funds--this is truly a Federal-State partnership.
  As many of my colleagues may know, I have been working on this 
project for 3 years. The need to replace the Fuller Warren Bridge has 
been recognized by local, State, and Federal transportation officials 
because its structural deficiencies have resulted in very serious 
safety and traffic congestion problems for a transportation edifice 
that is the gateway to our Nation's third largest State.
  Built in 1954, the Fuller Warren Bridge is functionally obsolete, its 
lane widths are insufficient, and it lacks safety shoulders. 
Consequently, Florida's Department of Transportation has identified 
this segment of I-95 to be a high accident location. In the past five 
years, 604 accidents have occurred along this segment resulting in 
economic losses exceeding $16 million. Accidents occur frequently due 
to the sudden narrowing of I-95 from a six- to eight-lane roadway to a 
four-lane bridge. In 

[[Page H 13323]]
addition, the bridge's serious structural deficiencies in the last few 
years led to the bridge being closed for 6 days in January 1992 when 
engineers found cracks in the counterweights. In 1993, the bridge was 
closed again when a 3-foot chunk of the bridge's roadway fell into the 
St. Johns River.
  The new bridge will improve the substantial traffic congestion that 
exists for the traveling public strictly because of the existing 
Bridge's structural deficiencies. The severe traffic congestion caused 
by the Fuller Warren bridge is well known to both local and interstate 
travelers. Each bridge opening lasts approximately 5 minutes or more. 
These delays create significant problems that affect traffic flow long 
after the bridge reopens. These bridge openings lower the capacity and 
the level of traffic service on Interstate 95.
  In addition to the frequent bridge openings of 15 to 20 times a day, 
the narrowing of I-95 from a six- to eight-lane roadway to a four-lane 
bridge adds to the problems encountered by traffic on the approach to 
the Fuller Warren Bridge. The resulting bottlenecks back up traffic for 
several miles on each side of St. Johns River delaying motorists for 
upwards of 30 to 45 minutes for each bridge opening. When the bridge 
fails mechanically because of the lift mechanism, any detour that is 
implemented winds through the downtown area. When the bridge's lift 
span failed in January, 1992, traffic had to be detoured for six-days 
and getting through Jacksonville was impossible as some motorists had 
to travel 60 miles to the west and utilize I-75. As a result of these 
delays, fuel consumption is increased and the city of Jacksonville 
experiences decreased air quality.
  The Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] has determined that 
existing Bridge needs to be replaced with an eight-lane high rise fixed 
span structure. The replacement bridge will provide greater traffic 
capacity, needed safety refuge lanes, and the elimination of the 
frequent bridge openings and sufficiently address the safety and 
traffic congestion problems of the existing bridge structure.
  The Fuller Warren Bridge replacement project is underway. 
Engineering, Final Design, and Right of Way Acquisition have already 
been funded. The parcels of land required have been acquired. Final 
design has been completed. Construction is scheduled to begin early in 
1996.
  However, the remaining $185 million construction cost is unfunded. Of 
this $185 million cost, about $37 million would be non-Federal 
contributions provided by the State of Florida and $148 million would 
be Federal highway funds, assuming an 80 percent Federal, 20 percent 
State split.
  This past June, the Florida Department of Transportation [FDOT] 
developed a plan using local, State, and Federal funds to replace the 
Fuller Warren Bridge. The most important part of the plan is FDOT's 
decision to contribute $100 million of right-of-way bond funds, which 
are now available for bridge construction in the State, towards the 
construction costs of the Fuller Warren replacement bridge. The 
Jacksonville Transportation Authority [JTA] has stepped up to the plate 
and committed $25 million for the Fuller Warren Bridge. The final piece 
of the financial puzzle will come from S. 440, the National Highway 
System bill because it allows Florida's Transportation Department to 
use a sizeable portion of $97.5 million from a transportation project 
that has been terminated for the Fuller Warren Bridge. On behalf of the 
city of Jacksonville, I thank all of you.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not mention my concerns 
about the provisions in this bill which repeal our Nation's speed 
limit. 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 that 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 we will see a dramatic increase in highway 
death as a result of this bill. I hope that I will be proven wrong, but 
I think that the supporters of the repeal will realize their mistake 
and we will be back on the House floor to correct it.
  Despite my concerns, I will support this conference report and ask 
President Clinton to sign S. 440 when it reaches his desk.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
on this important measure to continue the Nation's efforts to update 
and expand its infrastructure of national highways.
  I would like to draw the House's attention to one provision that 
makes changes to the inspection and maintenance requirements in title I 
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Effective inspection and 
maintenance of motor vehicles is a cornerstone of this Nation's efforts 
to reduce air pollution. It should remain so since it happens to be one 
of the most cost-effective ways of reducing emissions.
  Having said that, I have long had concerns about the lack of 
flexibility exhibited by EPA in implementing the enhanced vehicle 
inspection and maintenance mandate. It should be remembered that the 
overly-prescriptive approach that EPA originally embarked upon was 
developed and implemented by the Bush administration. Administrator 
Browner has since attempted to create more flexibility for States. EPA 
has dropped the Bush administration's opposition to alternatives to 
centralized inspection and maintenance programs and will approve 
alternative approaches. It has also indicated in recent policy 
statements that there will be no automatic discount for States that 
bring in these alternatives.
  While these are the proper positions, there remains some skepticism 
that the rank and file at EPA have truly open minds about letting 
alternative programs submitted by States receive the proper amount of 
credit. Because of that, this bill includes legislative language which 
essentially writes into law the flexibility that EPA has already 
indicated it will give States.
  This new provision includes an opportunity for States to secure 
interim approval of alternative programs with EPA required to grant the 
State the full amount of the proposed credit during the interim period. 
This submission must be supported by efforts in the State to implement 
the program including developing regulations and securing legislative 
authorities.
  As noted, EPA must approve the full amount of the credits claimed, 
where the credits reflect good faith estimates. By this, we are not 
asking EPA to consider the State's motives but rather asking EPA to 
ensure that the State's estimates are based on some basic technical 
assessment that includes appropriate technical and empirical data 
wherever possible. However, EPA should not mandate any presumptive 
discount and should review and consider any alternative programs on 
their individual merits.
  With these additions, I am confident that the inspection and 
maintenance provisions of the Clean Air Act can provide economical 
emissions reductions vital to move the country toward the national goal 
of clean air.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that 
the National Highway System is finally being approved. This bill will 
create for America in the 21st century what the interstate system has 
done for America in the 20th century.
  As a Texan sitting on the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, 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 home of Dallas 
and the entire State of Texas because it serves as our main corridor of 
trade with Mexico.
  With the passage of the North American Free-Trade Agreement [NAFTA] 
in 1993, trade with Mexico is expected to double by the end of the 
century and quadruple between the United States and Mexico within the 
next 25 years. The responsibility of Congress did not end with that 
historic vote. Passage of the NHS is a continuation of developing an 
infrastructure that maximizes the benefits of this agreement.
  The NHS represents some of our Nation's most heavily traveled byways, 
containing 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 shoulders, controlled 
access, and divided lanes will help reduce accidents and fatalities.
  However, while the focus of this legislation is to designate the NHS, 
it also has many provisions with which I do not agree. Unfortunately, 
this bill would repeal the Federal speed limit and allow States to have 
no speed limit at all if they wished. It would effectively repeal the 
motorcycle helmet requirement for individuals under the age of 18. I 
believe that these provisions seriously threaten our Nation's highway 
safety.
  I support this bill simply because it will bring the State of Texas 
approximately $455,792,000 and identifies 13,389 miles which will be 
the top priority miles for America as we move into the next century.

[[Page H 13324]]

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself, Surface Transportation 
Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri, and ranking minority member of the 
Surface Transportation Subcommittee Nick Rahall, I submit the following 
statement for the Record.
  Section 314 of the bill amends subsection (S) of title 23. Under this 
provision, it is clarified that States have the sole discretionary 
authority to determine whether to permit the construction and 
maintenance of new outdoor advertising structures within commercial and 
industrial segments of scenic byways. It has the further effect of 
modifying the standards under which section 1047 of ISTEA is 
implemented.
  Scenic byway programs are created by States with their own unique 
criteria for designating scenic byways. The provision clarifies that if 
a State determines that a segment is inconsistent with a State's 
criteria for designating such roads, it may segment out those portions 
from the designation and may choose to erect new billboards on those 
segments.
  The provision also clarifies that the Secretary of Transportation's 
authority is limited to assuring that a State has a reasonable basis 
for excluding a segment of an interstate or Federal-aid primary highway 
from scenic byways designation consistent with the State's scenic byway 
criteria, and that the State's action is not solely intended to evade 
Federal requirements regarding the prohibition of new billboards on 
scenic byways. Where a State exclusion is reasonable, that 
determination is controlling.
  One of the Federal Highway Administration's very first actions after 
the enactment of ISTEA was to issue an advisory that construed the 
provisions of subsection (S) to prohibit the construction of all new 
billboards on any State-designated scenic byways, including commercial 
and industrial areas incorporated within the byway. The FHWA's 
preemption policy was wrong as a matter of law because it conflicted 
directly with the basic structure of the Highway Beautification Act 
that expressly preserves the authority of the States to control outdoor 
advertising in commercial and industrial areas adjacent to controlled 
highways. The policy was ill conceived as a practical matter as well. 
The FHWA interpretation forced the States against their will to extend 
scenic byways regulation to inherently nonscenic areas. It also 
compromised economic development along scenic byways by impairing the 
ability of travel and tourism businesses within those areas to 
advertise themselves to the users of the highway.
  As the folly of this policy became clear, FHWA reversed its position 
and issued a segmentation policy in June 1993 that recognized State 
discretion to permit new billboards within the commercial and 
industrial segments that punctuate virtually every scenic byway. In a 
June 14, 1993 FHWA memorandum, it states:

       Scenic byways designated before, on, or after December 18, 
     1991, need not be continuous. A State may wish to exclude 
     from existing or future scenic byway designation highway 
     sections that have no scenic value, and which have been 
     designated solely to preserve system continuity. We do not 
     find that section 131(S) restricts a State from taking 
     administrative action to remove from scenic byway designation 
     any section lacking in scenic value which was included for 
     continuity purposes. However, the exclusion of a highway 
     section must have a reasonable basis. The Federal interest is 
     in preventing action designed solely to evade Federal 
     requirements.

  Unfortunately, the FHWA implemented its revised segmentation policy 
in a sporadic manner. As a result, there is broad confusion among the 
States regarding the scope of FHWA's authority in this area. The FHWA 
failed to issue any specific guidance to the States on how to implement 
segmentation in a manner that it would not be seen solely as an effort 
to evade the requirements of section 131(S) that prohibit billboards in 
truly scenic, noncommercial areas.
  Accordingly, the statement of manager's language emphasizes that the 
conference substitute codifies the current implementation of section 
131(S) in order to specifically freeze in place a congressional finding 
that compliance with the methodology and procedures followed by 
Virginia are sufficient to establish that a State has a reasonable 
basis for excluding certain scenic byways segments in a manner 
consistent with that State's scenic byways criteria. In this regard, 
the Virginia Department of Transportation made its determination based 
on onsite inspection of individual byways and identified the existing 
and future commercial and industrial areas within those corridors that 
it determined to exclude from scenic designation.
  The review of Virginia byway designation for the Lonesome Pine and 
Daniel Boone Heritage Trails is inserted in the Record as a specific 
example of sufficient State action necessary to show the State has a 
reasonable basis for excluding certain scenic byways segments in a 
manner consistent with that State's scenic byways criteria. The review 
is as follows:

  Review of Virginia Byway Designation Lonesome Pine and Daniel Boone 
                            Heritage Trails

       In July 1994, the Virginia Department of Transportation 
     (VDOT) conducted a review of the portions of the highways 
     within the federal-aid primary system of highways, as that 
     system existed on June 1, 1991, which comprise the Trail of 
     the Lonesome Pine and the Daniel Boon Heritage Trail 
     designated as Virginia Byways by the General Assembly. The 
     review was limited to adverse impacts the byway designation 
     had due to restricted use of property zones commercial or 
     industrial by the local governments and unzoned commercial or 
     unzoned industrial areas defended by the Commonwealth 
     Transportation Board, hereinafter, commercial or industrial 
     areas, to comply with the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA).
       It was determined that compliance with Section 1046(c) of 
     the ISTEA amendments to Section 131(s) of Title 23 of the 
     U.S.C. restricted 174 existing uses, 192 potential uses and 
     58 miles of commercial or industrial areas adjacent to the 
     247 miles of the Virginia Byways which are classified as 
     federal-aid primary highways. The byways traverse to go 
     through 13 cities or incorporated towns.
       Subsequent to the designation of the trials as Virginia 
     Byways, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Deputy 
     Chief Counsel issued a legal opinion on May 13, 1993 as to 
     the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 131(s). The legal opinion, in part, 
     included the statement ``Under ISTEA, Congress left to a 
     State's discretion the designation of a scenic byway under 
     the State's scenic byway program. There was no limitation as 
     to what highways a State could designate as scenic byways. If 
     such highways pass through commercial and industrial areas, 
     it is up to the State to determine if the scenic values of 
     such areas merit protection as part of a scenic byway.'' On 
     June 14, 1993, the FHWA Associate Administrator for Program 
     Development issued on informational letter to this effect as 
     well. A copy of the legal opinion and the informational 
     letter are attached.
       From its visual inspection of the sections of the 
     commercial and industrial areas adjacent of federal-aid 
     primary portions of the Virginia Byways comprising the trails 
     referenced hereinbefore, VDOT has determined that such 
     commercial and industrial areas do not have scenic values 
     that merit protection as part of the Virginia Byways. 
     Therefore, commensurate with the federal legal opinion and 
     administration's clarification referenced hereinbefore, the 
     General Assembly of Virginia can amend the Acts of Assembly, 
     1993 (H.R. 2068) to delete the Virginia Byway designation of 
     portions of highways therein adjacent to commercial and 
     industrial areas through enactment of a bill containing the 
     attached language without impacting VDOT's ability to comply 
     with ISTEA and other federal mandates a required to receive 
     its full share of federal monies appropriated for 
     transportation programs.
       Moreover, the Virginia Byway and Trail signs are in place 
     and can continue to be maintained if the commercial and 
     industrial areas are excluded from the byway designation.

  In contrast, the language in section 314, consistent with FHWA's 
current policy, does not permit categorical exclusions of commercial 
and industrial areas from State designated scenic byways without 
consideration of whether those areas are consistent or inconsistent 
with the State's own criteria. For example, the State of Louisiana 
proposed legislation to exclude commercial and industrial areas from 
scenic byway legislation. In a May 17, 1995, FHWA memorandum on the 
Louisiana legislation, FHWA stated:

       The proposed language automatically excludes commercial and 
     industrial areas from the Louisiana byways system without 
     consideration of the intrinsic qualities contained in the 
     Louisiana byways criteria within those areas. To exclude any 
     commercial or industrial area from scenic byway designation 
     it must be determined that there is an absence of these 
     intrinsic qualities.

  Section 314 of the conference report makes it clear that a State's 
determination to exempt specific scenic byways segments for new 
billboard construction is also dispositive in the implementation of any 
scenic byways program promulgated under section 1047 of ISTEA. In May 
1995, the FHWA issued a national scenic byways program interim policy, 
FHWA Docket No. 95-15. Section 11 of that policy parallelled the 
provisions of 131(S) and prohibited new billboards on those segments of 
controlled highways that are State-designated scenic byways. However, 
section 11 further required the States to prohibit billboards on 
portions of the interstate and Federal-aid systems incorporated into 
the national scenic byways program even where those roads were not a 
State designated scenic byway. As such, this second provision in 
section 11 is completely inconsistent with section 131(S) which limits 
the scope of the prohibition on new billboards to State-designated 
scenic byways. Likewise, the provision undermines the FHWA's own 
segmentation policy because it eliminates a State's discretion to 
exclude portions of its roads from scenic byway regulations and has 
chilled the nomination process.

[[Page H 13325]]

  The conference report resolves these issues by making it clear that 
the authority of the State's discretion to exclude segments from scenic 
byways designation under 131(S) applies equally with respect to any 
action by the Secretary pursuant to section 1047. Accordingly, FHWA may 
not engage in rulemaking, or take any administrative action under 
either section 131(S) or section 1047, that has the effect of 
preempting or compromising the States' discretion. As a result, the 
Secretary does not have the authority to compel a State to seek the 
prior approval of the Secretary for its actions in this regard. Rather, 
the Secretary's authority is limited to a determination, after the 
fact, of whether a State had a reasonable basis for excluding a segment 
of a scenic byway consistent with its scenic byways standards to 
determine whether the States' action was intended solely to evade 
Federal protection of truly scenic noncommercial areas. In the event 
that the Secretary makes that determination, the State has the ability 
to revise or withdraw its exclusion determination.
  The implementation of sections 131(S) and 1047 has been greatly 
complicated by the FHWA's overly expansive interpretations of its own 
authority. Through section 314 of the conference report, the Congress 
has made it clear that the discretion is vested with the States alone 
to exempt segments of scenic byways from the billboard prohibition and 
to make reasonable judgments regarding the location of billboards in 
those areas. The FHWA should immediately make appropriate revisions to 
its national scenic byway program interim policy and take other steps 
to reaffirm the broad authority of States' discretion under sections 
131(S) and 1047.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
agreement on this legislation to designate the National Highway System.
  As I look back over the legislative process that brought us to 
finalizing this conference agreement, I can best describe it in the 
words of the Grateful Dead: ``What a long strange trip it's been.''
  I say this because this body first passed NHS designation legislation 
last year.
  We did it more than a full year before the October 1, 1995, deadline 
that caused the sequestration of $5.2 billion worth of Federal highway 
funds to the States. Yet, at the time, the Senate refused to conference 
with us.
  And I say this because this year, after both bodies passed NHS bills, 
the conference lasted approximately 8 weeks, during which time we 
considered a number of strange and wondrous proposals advanced by the 
other body.
  Meanwhile, the States have now been subjected to the loss of all 
Federal Interstate maintenance and NHS funds for a month and a half 
now.
  It has been a long strange trip indeed, but that trip is now coming 
to an end.
  We bring before the House this day a conference report that at least 
accomplishes the fundamental purpose of this whole exercise: the 
designation of a new National Highway System in this country that will 
be the centerpiece of the post-interstate era.
  In effect, the crown jewels of America's highways.
  That designation, despite the misgivings many of us have over other 
aspects of this legislation, is of overriding concern in terms of 
national need and public interest, and causes this gentleman from West 
Virginia to urge the speedy enactment of this legislation.
  It is true that I am no fan of repealing the national speed limit. 
that repeal is included in the conference agreement.
  And it is true that I am deeply concerned, and have grave misgivings, 
over the potential adverse safety consequences of provisions of this 
legislation aimed at minimizing Federal regulation of delivery trucks, 
as well as hours of service waivers for a number of trucking sectors.
  These items would not be in a bill that I crafted.
  Yet, it is the majority will of both the House and Senate that these 
provisions be contained in this legislation. We fought our battles over 
them, and we fought them fairly under an open committee process and 
under an open rule of the House floor.
  And so, as I have noted, many of us have misgivings over this 
legislation but all in all, it is a must-pass bill because without the 
designation of the NHS, the States will continue to be denied $5.2 
billion in Federal highway funds, and the Nation, as a whole, will 
suffer.
  I commend this conference report to the House and urge its adoption.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the residents of the West Side of Manhattan, 
the local elected officials from New York City, the Council for 
Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers Union, the 
Porkbusters Coalition, and now the House and Senate, for the second 
time, have made it clear; they do not want the Federal Government to 
pay $300 million to move a newly refurbished highway in my district so 
that the tenants of Donald Trump's proposed luxury high-rise Riverside 
South development will have an unobstructed view of the Hudson River.
  As most of the Members of this body know by now I have been working 
for several years to kill the Trump-backed, $300 million Miller Highway 
relocation project in my own congressional district. I am pleased to 
say that because of the language in this NHS conference report, any 
plans to use taxpayer funds for this ill-conceived project are now 
defunct. The language in this report takes away all remaining ISTEA 
funding for this porkbarrel boondoggle. I want to take this opportunity 
to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar for their work in 
conference to ensure this project was not allowed to proceed. This is a 
victory for good government, but most of all, it is a victory for the 
American taxpayer who would have been asked to pay the bill.


                             general leave

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend remarks and 
include extraneous material on the conference report on the Senate 
bill, S. 440.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the conference report is 
agreed to.
  There was no objection.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________