[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 40 (Wednesday, April 1, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1885-H2030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BUILDING EFFICIENT SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND EQUITY ACT OF 1998
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 405 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2400.
{time} 1340
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. 2400) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety
programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Hastings of Washington 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) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control one hour, and
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) will each control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, today we bring to the floor of the House
historic legislation, legislation to rebuild America so that we have a
21st Century transportation system. In the 21st Century, from Seattle
to Miami, from New York to California, America is growing and
prospering, but our infrastructure is crumbling.
There are two fundamental principles in the bill we bring to the
floor today. The first is to put the trust back in the Transportation
Trust Funds. It is to restore honesty in budgeting.
Every time an American drives up to the gas pump and pays his or her
18.4-cent gas tax for every gallon of tax, that money goes into the
Highway Trust Fund and Americans have the right to believe that the
money in the trust fund is going to be spent to improve transportation.
In fact, that is the way it was, until in the mid-1960's President
Johnson got the idea that by not spending the money, he could help fund
the Vietnam War.
Indeed, it was Eisenhower and the Congress which made a Contract with
America, and that contract was you pay your gas tax, and that money is
spent to improve highways. Unfortunately, in the past several years, we
have had a fraud perpetrated on the American people. It has not
happened. We have had abate and switch. You pay your gas tax, but the
money in the trust fund does not get spent. To the tune, there is $23
billion in that Highway Trust Fund today.
Let me share with Members something that a very well-known American
said when he was Governor of a State just a few years ago. He said this
on television: ``The Congress took that money from us under a solemn
contract to turn right around and give it back to the States to be
spent on roads and highways. Instead, they are hoarding that money up
there, and the only reason is to make the Federal deficit look smaller
than it is. It is just wrong. It is wrong as it can be, and we ought to
stop it. It is in violation of the solemn contract the national
government has to the people who pay the tax.'' Governor Bill Clinton.
So I say now to the Clinton Administration, join us. Keep your word.
Help us unlock the trust fund so that money can go where it is supposed
to go, to improve America's transportation infrastructure.
We swallowed hard in the committee to get where we are today on a
couple of very, very important compromises. We agreed that from this
point forward, we would not count the interest in the trust fund.
Over the life of this bill, that means $15 billion in debt reduction
for our country. And we swallowed hard and said that approximately $10
billion of the $23 billion in the balance will be returned.
{time} 1345
Put those two figures together and you get about $25 billion in
reduced debt for the Federal Government, an amount which approximates
the increase in spending that this bill proposes. We only spend the
revenue coming into this Trust Fund from this point forward. We only
spend the money paid for by the American people in the gas tax and the
related transportation taxes. Indeed, the projection is we come in over
the 6-year period about $3 billion under the revenue coming in.
I would be quick to say, if there is no need to spend this money, we
certainly should not spend it, nor should we let it accumulate. We
should reduce the taxes.
So that brings me to, really, the second fundamental principle: That
is, what are the needs for investment in infrastructure for America? I
suggest
[[Page H1886]]
that the needs are very clear; indeed, they are overwhelming. Twenty-
seven percent of the highways in America are in poor condition. The
average American is stuck 26 hours out of every year in traffic. That
does not really tell the whole story. The average American living in
one of our big cities is stuck in traffic, bumper-to-bumper traffic,
over 50 hours in a year, more than a workweek in a year.
Indeed, on our highways, 42,000 Americans are killed every year. Of
that 42,000, 9,000 are kids killed on our highways. The experts tell us
that 30 percent of highway fatalities are caused by bad roads. That is
12,000 Americans of the 42,000 being killed on our highways. Indeed, it
is about 2,700 kids being killed on our highways as a result of bad
roads. That is more than a commercial airplane crashing every day. What
outrage we would have in this country if we had an airplane going down
every day.
In addition to those fatalities, 3.5 million Americans are injured on
our highways every year. Get this. For every baby born in America
today, six out of every ten babies born will be injured in an
automobile accident during his lifetime, some of them more than once,
if we do not change these accident rates.
We can change them. In fact, something I do not talk about very much,
but it is appropriate today, I think. Seventeen years ago I had my neck
broken in an automobile accident. I was a passenger in a head-on
collision. I had my seatbelt on. They tell me I would have been a dead
duck if I did not. But I am one of the lucky ones. They put three pins
in my neck and a bone out of my hip, and I am okay. I am here. I am
alive. I am lucky. But 42,000 Americans every year are not so lucky.
Nine thousand kids every year are not so lucky.
I would wager that there is hardly anybody here in the Chamber today,
or in our viewing audience, who has not had a loved one or a friend who
has been killed or seriously injured in an automobile accident. What is
the cost of a life? We cannot really put a price tag on it, but what we
do know is that with the investment made in this bill over the life of
this bill, the experts tell us we can cut fatalities by 4,000 people a
year. It sounds like a lot. Actually, it is less than 10 percent of the
fatality rate. It is doable. But do we want to cut the number in half,
2,000 lives a year? What is the value we put on a life?
This bill will save lives. This bill will give our country a
productivity boost, an economic boost. This bill will create jobs. For
every $1 billion invested in highways, 42,500 jobs are created.
Where is the support for this bill? It is not just here in the
Congress, although I must tell the Members how thrilled I was to see
the overwhelmingly positive vote we got just a few minutes ago on the
rule for this bill. If Members would listen to the naysayers, we would
have thought we would have squeaked through, at best. Instead, when the
vote came, it was six to one overwhelmingly in support of the rule for
this bill.
Who are the supporters of this bill? It is not just us. All 50
governors have endorsed this bill. The League of Cities, the mayors
have endorsed this bill. The counties have endorsed this bill. The
State legislatures have endorsed this bill. Environmentalists have
endorsed this bill. Safety groups have endorsed this bill. Labor, the
AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce, what a pair, have both endorsed
this legislation. And, yes, the AAA, representing millions of the
motoring public.
Why have they supported this bill? Why do we have this extraordinary,
broad, bipartisan support across America? Here is what the bill does:
It unlocks the Transportation Trust Fund and says, from this point
forward the revenue coming into the Trust Fund can be spent on
transportation improvements.
Do not believe this baloney that we somehow break the budget, that we
somehow create a deficit. Not a penny can be spent if, indeed, the
money is not there in the Trust Fund to be spent. Not a penny can be
spent if we do not come back to this House with offsets from conference
with the Senate. So it cannot bust the budget. Indeed, it can only
spend the revenues flowing into the Trust Fund paid for by the motoring
public.
That is not all this does. This revises the formulas for the States
by which they get their money in a much fairer way. We throw out the
old formula, which by the way is based in part on some 1919 statistics,
if Members can believe that. We throw that aside, and we create a much
fairer formula based on transportation need as well as population.
We raise the minimum allocation for each State to 95 percent,
including all formula funds; and, for the first time, we include the
projects in the minimum calculation. We also say that the donor States,
since they are the ones putting up most of the money, the donor States
get preference in discretionary grants.
Beyond that, we recognize the need for more flexibility. There are
those who argue we should give the program back to the States. We
believe that goes too far, but we acknowledge the States and the cities
should have much more flexibility, and we put it in this bill. In this
bill we provide that, in every category going back, the States and
cities can shift up to 50 percent of the money in that category into
any other category, based on the State or city need.
There are two modifications to that. We want to protect the
environment, and so we provide that in CMAQ and enhancements the States
must spend at least as much as they have been previously spending, but
in the increased money, 50 percent of that can be flexed to other
categories, should the States and the localities so choose.
Beyond that, we recognize the national interest. Those who talk about
just give it all back to the States I think must be living in 1920
instead of 1998. Interestingly, there is a greater Federal interest
today to tie our country together than there has ever been. Why?
Because we have more interstate travel than we have ever had.
I love to refer to Oklahoma City as an example. Out there, you have
two interstates that cross, 35 and 40. They were built to carry 60,000
vehicles a day. They are carrying 120,000 vehicles a day. But, to me,
that is not the most interesting figure. To me, the most interesting
figure is that 60 percent of the license plates on those vehicles are
out-of-State license plates. It is not an Oklahoma problem. It is a
national problem.
Up in Seattle, coming out of the great port of Seattle-Tacoma, over
50 percent of the product coming in from Asia is shipped to Chicago and
east. With tongue in cheek, I said they should change the name from the
Port of Seattle to the Port of Chicago, the point being it is not a
Washington State problem, it is a national problem.
Across America today, 64 percent of truck traffic is interstate.
There is a greater need to tie our country together to make sure that
the national interest is protected, as well as State and local
interest. That is why we bring this balanced bill to the floor.
We also move some general fund transportation spending into the Trust
Fund. We acknowledge that it is the Transportation Trust Fund that
should be spending the money, so we do that.
We also toughen up safety standards. We provide incentives to toughen
the drunk driving laws. We say that .08 is important, and we provide
incentives to the States to put .08 in their State laws. But we do not
want to have an unfunded mandate. We hope the States will do it. We
give them an incentive to do it.
On the subject of projects, which it seems the media and the
opponents, few though they are, have focused so much on projects, only
5 percent of the funds in this bill go to congressional high-priority
projects. Stop and think about it. Eight percent of all the money in
this bill goes back to the States. Seven percent goes downtown to the
Secretary of Transportation.
The last time I checked, angels in heaven did not make the decisions
and are not making the decisions as to where to build highways and
transit systems. It is a political process. There is nothing wrong with
the States, the Governors, the legislators having 88 percent of the
money to decide how it is going to be spent, or the Secretary having 7
percent of the pot.
We think it is not unreasonable, in fact, it is very reasonable, to
say that the Members of Congress who have to cast the tough votes on
this legislation
[[Page H1887]]
should be able to recommend to our committee what projects are most
important in their district, and we limit it to only 5 percent of the
pot.
In addition to that, when we hear those saying, well, it is the same
old way it used to be done, that simply is not true. We have a 14-point
vetting process where these projects must meet the standard, including
support from the Secretary of Transportation in their home States, or
their mayors, if it is in an MPO area.
Let me emphasize that this tough 14-point vetting program was
something that was actually proposed and put into effect by the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Nick Joe Rahall), a Democrat. So this
is bipartisan. It is something that makes a lot of sense; and, indeed,
it is something that should be done.
Further, let me emphasize, when we hear people saying, well, if you
eliminate the projects you save money, Mr. Speaker, we do not save a
penny. The money, if there are no projects, simply goes back to the
States or downtown. It will be spent, but it will either be the
faceless, nameless bureaucrats downtown or in State government or the
Governors or the State legislators who will be spending the money.
I do not know how many Members I have had come to me and say, for
example, my State government is all Republican, and I am a Democrat. I
do not get anything in my district, so I need a high-priority project.
Or, conversely, my State is all Democrat; and, as a Republican, I do
not get anything unless I have a high-priority project.
Who knows better what is most important in their district than the
Members of Congress from that district? In fact, I would respectfully
suggest there is a bit of arrogance in those who say that somehow they
know better what is important in their congressional districts than
Members know. Indeed, I would suggest that if Members do not know what
is really important to people in their congressional district, they are
not going to be here very long.
Let me emphasize that, while we have some disagreement in this bill,
I have the greatest respect particularly for the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. John Kasich), who is not a hypocrite and who said he does not want
to see tax revenue spent on transportation.
{time} 1400
I disagree with him. I disagree with him fundamentally. But he is
straight. This is his position. He has a right to take that position.
And he also, in the process, has not sent us letters requesting
projects for his district while at the same time saying he opposes
projects. He is not a hypocrite. He is an honorable person.
Mr. Chairman, I had to take the well last week and to release and put
in the Congressional Record letters from several Members of Congress
who are castigating the projects but who have asked for multimillion
dollar projects in their own congressional districts. Now, as hard as
that is for Members to believe, it is in the Record. It is there for
Members to see.
Last week I challenged any Member to come forward and say that I had
offered a project in exchange for his vote or, conversely, had
threatened to take a project away if he did not vote with us. Nobody
has responded to that challenge. Why? Because nobody can, because that
is not the way we do business. Not only in this bill, but never in my
career in the Congress have I ever made such a threat to a Member of
Congress.
So it is very regrettable that the people who on the one hand seem so
self-righteous also are dealing very loosely with the truth. Maybe
there is a little inconsistency there that I hope one might recognize.
In fact, there is a great line in the book, ``The Hawaiians'' which I
will clean up and paraphrase, which is, ``How I envy the pious. They
can be such hypocrites and never even know it.''
Well, the good news is we have dealt fairly with every Member in this
body. I must say I was surprised to see the gentleman from Delaware, my
good friend, last week holding a press conference because he does not
like our bill, calling it highway robbery. He is my good friend. We
serve together on the Select Committee on Intelligence. Indeed, we are
members of other organizations here on the Hill.
But what short memories we seem to have. It was just last year that
the Delaware delegation pushed through $2.3 billion for Amtrak. In fact
it was described by some as one of the most bizarre, backhanded ways of
funding a program that has ever been witnessed around here.
But I did not take the floor and call it the ``great train robbery.''
No, I supported what they were trying to do because we were able to
reform Amtrak, because Amtrak is important, not to some Members but to
the gentleman from Delaware and the Members from the Northeast
Corridor. Amtrak is important to them, so we supported that and we
supported the reform of Amtrak.
I must tell my colleagues that the reform bill spells out that those
reforms must be accomplished by June 1, or all money for Amtrak stops,
ceases, zero. I must also tell my colleagues that there are indications
that those reforms may not be met by June 1, which means they will have
to be back here on the floor again asking for forgiveness for Amtrak
legislation or there will not be any money for Amtrak.
Well, it seems to me that it might be a little more difficult next
time around to get that kind of forgiveness for Amtrak. So I hope that
those who sometimes seem to feel that nobody's cause but their own is
worthwhile might take a little broader look at the transportation needs
all across America.
The Woodrow Wilson Bridge is another case in point. A billion
dollars. We read so much in the local papers about the importance of
the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Let me tell my colleagues there are over 30
interstate reconstruction projects, all of which cost more than a
billion dollars. So while the Woodrow Wilson Bridge may well be
important to the region here, there are other projects all across
America which cost just as much on the interstate system, the highest
priority system, and which are just as important to other Americans
across this country.
So I hope that, again, those who seem to see nothing of virtue in
anything but their own particular interest might broaden their horizons
just a bit.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues who know me best know I am not exactly a
raving left-wing liberal spender. In fact the American Conservative
Union gave me a 100 percent rating last year. I slipped in my NFIB
rating. I only got a 97. I am not a big spender; I am a fiscal
conservative. But there is a fundamental difference between spending
tax dollars to build assets and pouring money down a rat hole.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I would say to my conservative Republican
colleagues, look at the legacy of our party. It was Abraham Lincoln who
in the midst of the Civil War signed the papers to create the first
transcontinental railroad and who strongly supported Henry Clay's
American system for capital improvements, for internal improvements.
It was Teddy Roosevelt, the Panama Canal. George Will, the wonderful
columnist, wrote a column a few months ago in which he observed that
some conservatives today, had those same conservatives been back there
with Teddy Roosevelt, probably would have voted against the Panama
Canal. Well, I would like to think not, but it does not end with Teddy
Roosevelt.
Eisenhower, the father of the interstate system. Mr. Chairman, do my
colleagues know who Eisenhower's floor manager was in the United States
Senate to pass the interstate system? Prescott Bush, the father of
President George Bush.
To my conservative colleagues I say we have a legacy here of building
America and today is the day we have the opportunity to do it. Today is
the day we have the opportunity to put honesty back in budgeting. To
spend only the trust fund money that is coming in. To save lives. To
remove congestion and to increase productivity. The revenue exists.
Let me close by sharing with my colleagues something that Stephen
Ambrose, the historian, wrote in a book that just came out recently. It
is a wonderful book entitled ``Citizen Soldiers.'' It is a book about
the soldiers of America who in World War II slogged their way through
Europe to win victory for our country and for the allies.
He wrote in the conclusion of his wonderful book about those World
War
[[Page H1888]]
II veterans when they came home, and here is what he said about them:
These were the men who built modern America. They wanted to
construct. They built the interstate highway system, the St.
Lawrence Seaway, the suburbs so scorned by the sociologists
but so successful with the people, and much more.
So let us on a bipartisan basis in this Chamber today, let us in our
time be the builders of a better America as we move into a new and
exciting 21st century, so that our children's children 50 years from
now might be able to look back and say: See, this they did for us.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, 42 years ago in this Chamber a Democratic Congress,
united with a Republican President, launched a new experiment in
transportation, one that would prove to be enormously successful in
improving America's mobility and expanding its economy and moving
transportation from border to border and coast to coast in a way that
never had been accomplished before.
Today we stand at the beginning of a new century and a new
millennium. The legislation we bring to the floor today takes us beyond
the vision of the interstate system and beyond the vision that was
created in ISTEA in 1991 and to a new century, a new millennium, a new
investment with renewed vigor in a future America.
Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman
Shuster) on the extraordinary job he has accomplished of leading us
through the thicket of conflicting issues, values, ideas, demands,
interests and pressures to do the right thing for America. He traced
the evolution of the transportation system, of this legislation, in a
very heartfelt, deeply sensitive and deeply committed way just a moment
ago. His words are a measure for all time.
What we do in this legislation is not just to continue but to extend
beyond where we have been in our transportation mix of the last 42
years. Mr. Chairman, we continue the investment in America that is the
fundamental driving force for this transportation sector, which is 10
percent of our gross domestic product. We continue the programs of this
country that we initiated in ISTEA that have been so enormously
successful. We continue the environmental stewardship. We address
safety and, indeed, had we not addressed safety with the interstate
highway program in 1956, we would be killing 110,000 people on
America's highways today.
We provide continued equity in our transportation program for
minorities for labor, for construction labor, and for the States
through our distribution formula. This is a bill that is good for all
America, for all time, to take us into that next century. Not a bridge
of fiber optic cable, but a bridge built on concrete, asphalt, steel
and goodwill and good vision and a good sense of direction for America.
Transportation means economic growth, means mobility, and it means
opportunity for America. That is what this legislation is all about.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) chairman of the Subcommittee on
Surface Transportation.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering legislation that,
perhaps more than any bill we will consider this Congress, touches the
lives of each and every constituent of each and every Member of this
House.
Mr. Chairman, until something goes wrong, we often overlook the
impact that transportation has on our daily lives. No matter who we are
or where we live, we rely on an efficient and safe transportation
network. Whether we live in an urban area where transit provides a way
to get to and from work; whether we farm land in a rural area and need
to get crops to market quickly; whether we own a business that needs to
truck in materials and get finished goods out over the roads; whether
we are a young mother worrying about safely driving our young children
to school each day; or whether we load up the family and go down the
highway on our annual family vacation in Disney World or the Grand
Canyon, we need a good transportation system in the United States for
daily commutes, to transport freight around the country, and to provide
opportunities for tourism and for recreation.
Transportation is something that we use every day, and it provides a
safe and efficient way of getting around and moving goods, and it is
something that our constituents expect.
Mr. Chairman, today we have an opportunity to pass legislation that
truly does provide tangible, real benefits for all Americans. Some have
tried to attack the bill before us based on the funding levels and
budget implications of authorizations for projects in various Members'
districts. But those critics ignore one important fact: all the
spending in this bill is fully supported by the gas taxes paid and
collected in the Highway Trust Fund. In fact, spending is actually
below trust fund revenues over the next 6 years. Spending in this bill
is linked to the amount of taxes collected in the trust fund, taxes
collected from the motoring public and which can be used only for
transportation purposes.
Spending increases in this bill are so large in part because we are
finally using the gas taxes for transportation instead of hoarding them
in the trust fund to subsidize other spending. The current trust fund
balance is about $23 billion. Under the budget agreement last year it
would have grown to $70 billion. What is fair about that, government
borrowing from the trust fund to spend on all kinds of things, adding
to the national debt?
Gas taxes are user fees collected to fund transportation. They should
either be used for that purpose, as BESTEA does, or the gas tax should
be cut.
{time} 1415
Now, some have used the term ``hypocrisy'' to describe this bill.
Well, the true hypocrisy is taxing the American public, saying we will
use those taxes only for transportation, and then not living up to our
part of the bargain. That is why America has become so skeptical about
Washington.
We are ending that practice in this bill. We should not lose sight of
the fact that since BESTEA more fully spends the new gas taxes coming
into the trust fund, we have agreed to write off a total of $9 billion
of the outstanding $22 billion cash balance in the Highway Trust Fund,
and we have agreed to forgo interest that would otherwise be credited
to this trust fund saving over $14 billion in national indebtedness. No
one has been talking about that, but it reduces the outstanding debt of
the United States by over $20 billion.
We have significantly reformed distribution formulas to provide for
the more equitable allocation of funds among the States. Funding
formulas are updated so that we no longer use historic shares to
distribute funds, and instead we use up-to-date transportation data
that more accurately reflects usage and need.
Minimum allocation for donor States is increased to 95 percent.
Several other donor State funding provisions are included. A very
significant reform is that for the first time projects are included in
the minimum allocation calculation so States cannot be severely
disadvantaged or advantaged whether they have or do not have projects.
Finally, donee States do not lose in terms of actual dollars
received, but in fact increase substantially over the amounts received,
over the past 6 years of ISTEA. Under BESTEA, we are able to increase
funding for clean air programs. We increase by $2 billion funding for
safety and safety education programs, and we have done an increase in
transit funding by 43 percent.
It contains significant reforms to streamline project delivery and
reduce red tape, including coordinating environmental reviews, reducing
project approval requirements and eliminating programmatic
responsibilities of Department of Transportation regional offices.
Mr. Chairman, passage of BESTEA today means Americans traveling on
the roads will be safer. It means that we will take a step forward in
sustaining and improving the economic prosperity that we as Americans
are so fortunate to enjoy. And it means that we will be competitive in
a global economy that relies on efficient transportation. We quite
literally need good
[[Page H1889]]
highways, bridges and public transit to keep us moving ahead into the
future.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Aviation.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2400, the
Building Efficiency Surface Transportation and Equity Act, commonly
referred to as BESTEA. First, I want to thank our chairman and ranking
members for all of their hard work, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Rahall). They have worked together to create a strong bipartisan
bill that provides the necessary funding to maintain and improve our
Nation's infrastructure.
I am sure that during the debate today, a few of our colleagues will
try to say that this important bill busts the Balanced Budget Act of
1997. This is simply not true. This bill is paid for out of the Highway
Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund is supported by fuel taxes paid by
motorists. Therefore, this bill is paid for each time motorists go to
pay for their gasoline. BESTEA does not bust the balanced budget.
BESTEA simply spends down the large unspent surplus in the Highway
Trust Fund. Under this bill, dedicated gas taxes are used for their
dedicated purpose, to address the transportation needs of cities and
States throughout this Nation.
This is absolutely necessary because America's transportation needs
are staggering. Our Nation's transportation infrastructure in many
areas is crumbling and it is in urgent need of repair, mainly because
we as a Nation have not invested enough to maintain and improve our
transportation system. In fact, in the last 30 years transportation
spending as a percentage of the Federal budget has been cut in half.
Yet investing in transportation means investing in America's future.
Economic studies show that every dollar invested in the highway
system yields $2.60 in economic benefit. Other countries are already
investing billions in their core infrastructure. Fortunately, BESTEA
does the same for America.
Mr. Chairman, as I said this morning, BESTEA is a good bipartisan
bill. It will provide better, safer roads. It will provide new and
improved public transportation systems. It will improve air quality by
reducing traffic congestion and by promoting public transit. It will
provide good jobs for middle-class Americans. It will ensure America's
future as a world leader by maintaining and improving our world class
surface transportation system. I strongly urge all my colleagues to
vote to invest in America's future and vote in favor of H.R. 2400.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I almost find myself uncontrollable here in recognizing and giving 5
minutes to the Honorable John Paul Hammerschmidt, a former member of
Congress and a former ranking member of our committee, the man who
would be chairman if he were still here, so I want to acknowledge he is
in the Chamber and wish him well.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to join in the
acknowledgment of our colleague, one of the architects of ISTEA that
brings us to the floor today, and an extraordinarily distinguished
Member of this House and of our committee for so very, very many years.
We owe him a great debt of gratitude.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) chairman of one of
the important appropriations subcommittees.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding the time
and join in welcoming our friend, Mr. Hammerschmidt, back to this
Chamber.
Mr. Chairman, the highway bill before us today opens doors for the
Nation and the people of Kentucky. First, it unlocks the Highway Trust
Fund, providing the money needed to invest in our national highway
system and to boost spending in donor States like Kentucky. BESTEA
gives Kentucky 90 cents back on every dollar that we send in to the
trust fund as opposed to 77 cents they received under ISTEA.
Overall, Kentucky will receive on average approximately $479 million
per year in highway funding. That is 70 percent more than our share
over the last 5 years.
Second, it launches the I-66 project in Kentucky, making the first
major dollar investment toward construction. I-66 will open up southern
and eastern Kentucky to the rest of the Nation, creating thousands of
jobs.
Third, monies included in the House and Senate version of this bill
virtually guarantee that we will make substantial progress on the
unfinished sections of the Appalachian development road system, which
is vital to our region.
Of special importance is that this bill will save lives. BESTEA gives
States the ability to improve the safety of many poorly designed roads
and bridges. This will save hundreds of lives in Kentucky alone.
Simply put, BESTEA is the best deal for Kentucky, the best deal for
donor States and the best deal for our Nation. I congratulate the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the other members of the committee for a
great job on a great bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, who has contributed so
vigorously and so many dedicated, devoted hours to the shaping of this
legislation.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I commend the gentleman as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster) and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), for their excellent work on this legislation. As
we begin debate on this legislation, we are indeed at a crossroads in
this country. We can decide whether we want to retreat from the
transportation needs of the new century and fail to make the necessary
investments in our highway and transit infrastructure, or we can rise
to the challenge and dedicate the necessary resources to these
endeavors.
Those of us who bring this legislation forth today are seeking to
rise to that challenge, to keep faith with the American public, to
restore integrity and restore trust back into the Highway Trust Fund
and to make the necessary investments in America. To be clear, this is
not just about an investment in concrete and asphalt, but one about
investment into our children, one about investment into our
environment, and an investment into the very social fabric of this
Nation.
This legislation involves the very standard of living we in this
country wish to enjoy, and it entails the type of legacy we wish to
leave to future generations, our children. Poor road pavement, outdated
design standards, and the lack of safety enhancement present a very
real threat to the motoring public. In parts of my district, school
buses have collided with trucks for these very reasons, prematurely
extinguishing the innocent lives of our younger generation. I know
tragedies like this have happened elsewhere around the country.
This bill makes an investment into improving those roads and
providing more safety features so that we can better ensure the well-
being of our children.
Our environment, let us look at what this bill does. Congestion
plagues our cities, both large and small. Air quality deteriorates as
vehicles stack up behind each other with motors idling. And tempers
flare erupting into road rage affecting so many parts of this country.
This bill makes an investment into improving our environment by
advancing alternative means of transportation such as transit, bicycle
and pedestrian pathways, and innovative new intelligent transportation
systems.
Our very standard of living, let us look at what this bill does. In
order to compete globally, companies are demanding production
efficiency. It is estimated that more than one-half of U.S.
manufacturers are using just-in-time inventory systems. This approach
requires an efficient transportation system.
[[Page H1890]]
This legislation makes a fundamental investment into improving our
transportation systems, not just highways, but transportation links
that are intermodal in nature, to better ensure the smooth flow of
goods, both domestic and international markets.
It has been said that ISTEA represented a revolution in how we viewed
our surface transportation needs. Over the course of the last 6 years
ISTEA, as implemented, has produced some fundamental changes in the
Federal role in transportation. It empowered our local communities.
If ISTEA was indeed a revolution, then this bill known as BESTEA is a
revelation; a revelation because it exposes the Highway Trust Fund for
what it truly is, not an account to be used to mask the true size of
the Federal deficit, or make our budget look brighter. Not a pot of
funds to be held hostage to the whims and the caprices of our
budgeteers, but rather as a trust fund, a trust fund paid into by the
American motorists for the express purpose of receiving a better return
in building our road and bridges in this country.
I urge adoption of this entire bill. I think it is what the American
public wants. It is what our children and future generations want.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to recognize the
tremendous steps the committee is taking to significantly to improve
donor States rate of return in this bill. BESTEA distributes funds
equitably among the States by reforming the highway funding formulas so
that they are based upon relevant transportation factors.
Specifically, there are provisions in this bill which will guarantee
that no State will fall below a 90 percent return on its contributions
to the Highway Trust Fund. In addition, the committee repealed the
penalty on discretionary grants for States that receive minimum
allocation funding. While BESTEA is not perfect, Mr. Chairman, it
certainly goes a long way to address the critical need of donor States,
and I hope we can continue to work together to that end.
This bill is not only about saving lives, it is about being honest
with the American people. Many Members in the Chamber today will claim
that this is a budget buster. I am a fiscal conservative, Mr. Chairman.
This charge is simply not true.
When Congress set up the Highway Trust Fund, it created a contract
with the American people by instituting a gas tax with the promise that
these taxes would only be used for transportation improvements. When
these taxes are used to mask the size of the deficit or to increase
welfare spending or foreign aid, the contract is broken and American
lives are put at risk. Using the gas tax for other social spending is
wrong and dishonest.
We must, in fact, spend these taxes on what we promised we would
spend them on. It is an honesty question and it is time to be honest
with the American people. If we are not going to expend these monies
for the purpose that was intended, then let us repeal the tax.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to spend the Highway Trust Fund where it is
supposed to be spent: Improving roads and enhancing the safety of the
American motorists who use those roads.
{time} 1430
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member on 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 distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for yielding me this time.
I also want to commend and congratulate both he and our distinguished
Chairman for bringing this truly bipartisan and truly historic bill to
the floor of the House of Representatives. I also want to commend the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and, of course, our ranking member
on the subcommittee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to understand that this is not
just a highway bill. By establishing funding levels that are fiscally
sound, it provides necessary resources to meet America's diverse
transportation infrastructure needs.
BESTEA maintains the enhancement and CMAQ provisions set forth in
ISTEA. It provides for an equitable distribution of funds among States,
it improves safety on our highways, provides flexibility for States and
local areas, and it benefits urban and rural America.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to point out that these varied and
critical goals can only be met because of a provision in the bill that
calls for phasing in spending the 4.3 cents fuel tax recently returned
to the Trust Fund and taking the Trust Fund, itself, off budget
beginning in 1999.
The monies that are actually spent on our country's infrastructure
have been consistently and substantially less than what is collected.
To call this money a dedicated tax and then disregard its intended use
is a fraud. Clearly, our country has enormous transportation
infrastructure needs. We cannot afford to look the other way while
revenues committed to address these needs go elsewhere or sit fallow.
That money is desperately needed, and it exists in a Trust Fund. We do
not need to find the money to pay for our infrastructure. We simply
have to stop others from spending it for unintended purposes.
Mr. Chairman, I must tell my colleagues, as a Representative from an
urban community, I am greatly encouraged by the increase in transit
funding provided for in BESTEA. Ridership on computer and light rail
has grown steadily and significantly. New transit starts are exploding.
And as such, in each of the last 4 years of the bill, $6.4 billion is
spent on transit, nearly a 50-percent increase above current funding
levels.
In the current political climate of decreased Federal spending,
committing such revenues speaks to the recognition of the pivotal role
mass transit must play if we are to best utilize our resources,
transportation and otherwise.
Perhaps the best illustration of the innumerable benefits investments
in our Nation's infrastructure and, more specifically, in transit can
yield is found in the welfare-to-work provisions of the bill. This
critically important program helps restore our cities and return our
people to productive use by providing them with the ability to
physically get to where the jobs are.
People in my city of Philadelphia know all too well that, as
companies abandon our cities for the suburbs, they take their jobs and
opportunities with them, leaving unemployed city dwellers. In fact,
two-thirds of all new jobs created are in the suburbs. Furthermore,
less than 6 percent of families receiving benefits from the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Family program own cars. This means that 94
percent must rely on transit systems to get them to work.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my wholehearted support for H.R.
2400, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of
1997. Let me first congratulate Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member
Oberstar, Chairman Petri, and Ranking Member Rahall for the truly
remarkable job that they have done. Reauthorization of any bill of this
magnitude is always an arduous and delicate task. But the validity of
some of the inherently competing interests associated with this
program, and the need for those interests to be both acknowledged and
reconciled, created a monumental assignment for those charged with the
reauthorization of ISTEA. What they bring to the floor today, surpasses
any reasonable expectations held by those of us all too familiar with
the scope and complexity of the bill. In BESTEA, the enormous needs of
our nation's infrastructure have been addressed, while maintaining the
integrity of the program itself. The result is a bipartisan product the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the whole House,
should be proud to endorse. Finally, with this bill, we can do what we
have promised every American that we would do when we asked them to pay
into the Highway Trust Fund at the gas pump- adequately build and
maintain our nation's crumbling infrastructure.
This is not just a highway bill. By establishing funding levels that
are fiscally sound it provides the necessary resources to meet
America's diverse infrastructure needs. BESTEA maintains the
enhancement and CMAQ provisions set forth in ISTEA. It provides for an
equitable distribution of funds among states, improves safety on our
highways, focuses on national priorities, streamlines program delivery,
[[Page H1891]]
and reinvents the DOT. The bill provides flexibility for states and
local areas, benefits urban and rural America and supports technology
development needed as we enter the 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to point out that these varied and
critical goals can only be met because of a provision in the bill that
calls for phasing-in spending the 4.3 cents fuel tax recently returned
to the Trust fund and taking the Trust fund, itself, off-budget,
beginning in 1999. When Congress established the Highway Trust Fund in
1956, it was a deliberate policy decision to impose a user fee funding
mechanism and a trust fund, rather than continuing to support
transportation infrastructure programs out of general revenues. The
Highway Trust fund ensured that the money was collected from those
benefitting from the improvements by taxing gasoline, diesel and
special fuels as well as heavy trucks and tires. By creating a trust
fund, Congress was presumably guaranteeing a promise to those
contributing to the fund that the money would be dedicated to
transportation infrastructure improvements. This promise has blatantly
been ignored for far too long. The monies that are actually spent on
our country's infrastructure are consistently, and substantially, less
than what is collected. As a result, an enormous surplus has been
allowed to accumulate in the Trust Fund, much to the delight of our
Nation's bookkeepers. This practice of locking up billion of dollars in
treasury notes that should rightfully be stimulating our economy has
been likened to a shell game, and amounts to nothing more than fraud on
the taxpayer. To call this money a dedicated tax and then disregard its
intended use is fraudulent. I can tell you as a sixteen year veteran of
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that our nation's
infrastructure can no longer afford to pay the price for dishonest
bookkeeping.
The Department of Transportation estimates that simply maintaining
current conditions on our highway, bridge, and transit systems will
require annual investments of $57 billion, an increase of 41%. These
conditions are indisputably unacceptable and unsafe. In my home state
of Pennsylvania for example, more than 70% of our roads were rated fair
to poor. Over 40% of our bridges were deemed deficient. These
statistics are not inconsequential. Inadequate roads and bridges are a
factor in traffic accidents that result annually in over 12,000 highway
deaths nationwide. Metropolitan congestion alone costs our nation more
than $40 million annually.
Transit needs are at least as critical. One-third of rail maintenance
yards, stations, and bridges, and almost one-half of transit buildings
are still in poor or fair condition. Rolling stock needs immediate
replacement as the average fleet age for all classes of bus and
paratransit vehicles has exceeded the useful life of the vehicles.
Additionally, 51% of rural buses are overage and more than 9,000 urban
buses need immediate replacement. According to the DOT, to improve the
condition of our nation's infrastructure to optimal levels, would
require annual investments of $80 billion. Clearly, our country has
enormous needs. We cannot afford to look the other way while revenues
committed to address these needs go elsewhere or sit fallow. Perhaps,
if our nation's roads and bridges weren't crumbling we could indulge
our colleagues as they continued to steal money dedicated to
infrastructure so that they could claim, and take credit for, a
balanced budget. But we can't. That money is desperately needed, and it
exists in the trust fund. We don't need to find the money to pay for
our infrastructure, we simply have to stop others from spending it for
unintended purposes. If that results in a budget that is not balanced,
I would suggest that my colleagues who serve on the appropriate
committee should take a closer look and find offsets that would make up
for the money they planned to divert from this user fee.
Mr. Chairman, I must tell you that, as a Representative from an urban
community, I am greatly encouraged by the increase in transit funding
provided for in BESTEA. Ridership on commuter and light rail has grown
steadily and significantly. New transit starts are exploding. In fact,
our committee received over 150 requests for these type of projects
just this year, totaling over $25 billion. As such, in each of the last
four years of the bill, $6.4 billion is spent on transit, nearly a
fifty percent increase above current funding levels. In the current
political climate of decreased federal spending, committing such
revenue speaks to the recognition of the pivotal role mass transit must
play if we are to best utilize our resources-transportation and
otherwise.
Perhaps the best illustration of the innumerable benefits investment
in our nation's infrastructure--and more specifically, in transit, can
yield, is found in the Welfare-to-Work provision of the bill. This
critically important program, helps restore our cities--and return our
people--to productive use, by providing them with the ability to
physically get to where the jobs are. People in my city of Philadelphia
know all too well that, as companies abandon our cities for the
suburbs, they take their jobs and opportunities with them, leaving
unemployed city dwellers. In fact, two-thirds of all new jobs created
are in the suburbs. Furthermore, research by the U.S. Department of
Transportation found that less than 6% of families receiving benefits
from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program own cars. This
means that 94% must rely on transit systems to get them to work. In the
past, those of us who represent cities, have watched, with great
frustration, the impact on our community as these companies leave for
the suburbs. We have focused a great deal of energy on convincing
companies to stay in or come to our city. While this is important, it
is not always possible and, perhaps in our zealousness, we have not
recognized the benefits of any other alternatives. If a company can or
will not stay in the city, there is still an enormous economic benefit
to be had, should people be able to commute out to the suburbs. This is
the impetus behind the welfare-to-work program. And we have seen it
work in cities like Chicago. Suburban Job-Link, working with Chicago's
PACE bus company, began serving the needs of unemployed Chicago
residents in 1971. The program has proven to yield economic rewards.
For every 1,000 workers employed at suburban manufacturing jobs, $25
million in pay and benefits annually flow back into inner-city
neighborhoods.
Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to applaud the leadership of our
committee for their truly remarkable and Historic accomplishment. A
year ago, it seemed a nearly impossible task to meet the very real,
diverse, and often competing needs of our nation's infrastructure. But
Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar held firm to their
principles, arguing tirelessly that integrity be restored to the Trust
Fund. It is with admiration that I acknowledge their achievement and
without any hesitation that I offer my support for the BESTEA bill.
This bipartisan effort and product represents the very best our
committee has to offer, and reinforces both the pleasure and pride with
which I have served on it for the past sixteen years.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf).
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate the Chairman on an outstanding bill and ask if the
Chairman will enter into a colloquy?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I will be
pleased to.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, as the Chairman has noted, the volume of
international trade passing through Washington State's ports has
snarled traffic at dozens of at-grade rail-highway crossing in the
Puget Sound region. As the Chairman knows, public and private interests
have come together to propose a series of grade-crossing projects and
port-access projects that we refer to as the ``fast corridor'' program.
Does the Chairman agree that section 115 of the bill, the National
Corridor Planning and Development Program, was designed to help
projects like the fast corridor?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would certainly
agree with the gentleman. I have seen the problem firsthand there.
As the gentleman from Washington has observed, I have first-hand
knowledge of the special mobility problems in the Puget Sound region.
The Fast Corridor Program was developed to address that problem.
Section 136 of the bill designates the ``Everett-Tacoma Fast
Corridor'' as a ``high-priority corridor.'' With this designation, the
fast corridor would be eligible for funding under section 115, as you
have already pointed out.
Section 115 was designed with projects like the fast corridor in mind
and I am certain that it would be an ideal candidate.
I commend the gentleman for his initiative on this matter and for the
leadership he brings to transportation issues in the region.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Kim), a distinguished member of the committee.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard critics saying today that we are stealing
money from other programs to rebuild our highways and bridges. Now,
come on. Let us be honest with the American people. The money is
already there. The American people pay for it with the gas tax money.
In 1956, Congress made a simple contract with the American people
that gas taxes would be used for highways and bridges. Seven years ago,
Congress broke the promise and diverted gas tax
[[Page H1892]]
money to foreign aid and other programs.
Southern Californians have paid dearly for that ever since. Southern
Californians spend more time stuck in traffic than anyone else in the
country.
And there is another argument. I am tired of hearing this bill is
full of pork. It is not about pork. It is about saving people's lives.
Every year 14,000 people are killed in roads that are too narrow, too
congested, or simply too dangerous for existing traffic. None of these
people have to die.
In my district, there is a road known as ``Blood Alley.'' Eight lanes
of freeway are crammed into a two-lane country road when it crosses the
county line. About 10 people die each year on this three-mile stretch
of road because the counties do not want each other's traffic.
Our bill includes $13 million to widen this Blood Alley and save
lives. Fixing Blood Alley is our responsibility. It is not pork. Our
bill saves lives and restores our promise to the American people. This
bill forces Washington to keep its promise and fix highways with the
gas and tax money.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Public
Buildings and Economic Development, a valiant, vigorous member of our
committee and advocate for Buy America.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, $217 billion is being invested in
America, not overseas. To put some perspective on it, our trade
deficits with China in the next 6 years will exceed $300 billion.
Now let us call it like it is. Everybody is talking about pork. I was
called the king of pork on ISTEA because I got five bridges funded. One
of those bridges collapsed last week. One of my constituents almost got
killed. Thank God, no one got killed in my district. They do not call
that bridge pork today.
Now let us put the hay where the goats can reach it. To all of these
political purists in the Congress, here is how they would have it: We
would fight to get the money for the States. The local politicians
would have press conferences and announce the projects. Then they would
brag how they got the money and that there was no Federal money in it.
And then they will run against us. Beam me up. I do not apologize.
In 1986, I passed the amendment that increased the minimum allocation
to donor States. And last year in Ohio, 28 major projects, I did not
get one of them; and we are the most deserving.
I do not apologize for any damn thing. They can call me anything they
want on this House floor, but if we do not take care of our district,
no one is going to take care of our district. Stand up today, and you
fight for your district. That is what it is about. This is not the
Rotary, my colleagues.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Boehlert).
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of BESTEA,
the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act.
I would like to point out to all of my colleagues and to the American
people that BESTEA is green tea. The reason I have attached the label
of ``green tea'' to the bill before us this afternoon is because the
legislation provides more funding to improve the quality of America's
environment than any approved by this body in the last decade.
This is an environmentally sensitive and an environmentally friendly
bill. And that is good for the American people, because they expect us
to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink and the food we
eat. Nothing is more important than that in terms of our assignment.
Green tea contains over $40 billion for the transit program, the
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality program, commonly known as CMAQ; the
Transportation Enhancement Program; the Recreational Trails Program;
and the National Scenic Byways Program.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the Chairman, and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, are to be
applauded for their obvious concerns about America's transportation
policy and how they have incorporated a sensitivity to the environment
in this measure.
In fact, the environmental community strongly endorses BESTEA. Let me
repeat this point. The environmental community strongly endorses BESTEA
because they, too, know it is green tea. The Environmental Defense
Fund, the League of American Bicyclists, the National Trust of Historic
Preservation, the National Parks and Conservation Association, the
Natural Resources Defense Council, the Rails to Trails Program, Scenic
America and the Sierra Club all strongly support BESTEA because they,
too, know it is green tea.
Green tea provides nearly $4 billion for the transportation
enhancement program. This program provides needed funding to
communities to build bicycle and pedestrian facilities and renovate
historic transportation facilities. Green tea provides nearly $10
billion for the Congestion and Mitigation Air Quality Program over a 6-
year period.
This is a good bill. It deserves support. It has earned the support
of the environmental community.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Clement), the distinguished ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, this is a great day for all
of us when it comes to transportation and the future of transportation
needs. We know what they are doing in Europe, we know what they are
doing in Asia, we know what they are doing in other countries around
the world when it comes to infrastructure; and we are falling further
and further behind.
As one of the so-called donor States, I do know that we have been
underserved, short-changed in the past. And I am pleased to hear what
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) said so well and so
eloquently a while ago, that this outdated formula goes back all the
way to 1991 and now it is time, because of the shifts in population,
that we need to realize that we need to make some major adjustments in
the formula in order to be fair to all States involved. This is a great
day. I strongly support this transportation bill. It is truly in our
best interest.
Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to have a colloquy with the
Chairman on a matter.
I would like to thank the Chairman for his willingness to extend the
Coast Guard's boating safety program in H.R. 2400. Mr. Chairman, H.R.
2400 also extends the transfer of the gasoline tax attributable to
motorboats from the Highway Trust Fund to the Boating Safety Account.
Does this mean that the Boating Safety Account will have the same
budgetary treatment as the Highway Trust Fund in section 701 since this
is a disbursement from the Highway Trust Fund?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, the
gentleman from Tennessee is correct. Since the Boating Safety Account
receives its money from the Trust Fund, it would have the same
budgetary treatment as the Highway Trust Fund under section 101.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, let us all get behind this most important
transportation bill for the 21st century. We need it, and we need it
now.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox).
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 2400, this outstanding bipartisan measure to reauthorize our
Federal surface transportation programs. A great deal of credit goes to
the leadership of our Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster); the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); and members of
staff.
We have far too many roads, bridges, and transit systems which have
been neglected and have fallen into disrepair. They are leading to
highway fatalities, congestion, in addition to wasted time, energy and
money. We must restore the trust of the American people and spend the
federal gas taxes they already pay to restore our Nation's
infrastructure.
Take roads such as Route 309 in Pennsylvania, right in my district,
[[Page H1893]]
where the accident rate is double that of the State-wide average. We
can stop these deaths by making sure we pass BESTEA. Save our roads,
improve mass transit, job creation and environmental preservation. That
is what this bill is all about.
The Transportation needs of the country are at stake, and we need to
take care of what is best for our constituents. I urge all my
colleagues here in this room and those listening to please vote ``yes''
on BESTEA. This is the best investment in America, the best investment
in our communities, and the best investment for our people.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the voice of our Nation's
capital in this body.
{time} 1445
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his generosity in
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I have come to the floor to take head-on this notion
that transportation and infrastructure money in today's America is
pork. This is displaced rhetoric from prior decades before our
infrastructure declined dangerously.
There are two ingredients that make the United States a world class
power. One is human capital. The other is our infrastructure. We cannot
maintain our place in the world if we continue to allow our
infrastructure to rot.
Go to India. Enormous investment in human capital, but not in
infrastructure, and so they are exporting their human capital, sending
their people, their technicians and their scientists, around the world.
A great power must have balanced investment.
I am still a tenured law professor at Georgetown. Human capital
advantage, I understand. That is why I support education so strongly.
But neither must we lose the huge advantage infrastructure gives us in
world markets.
Instead of maintaining that advantage, we have been disinvesting in
our infrastructure. There is no excuse for continuing to do so, because
this bill is fully paid for out of transportation trust funds. Nor are
the earmarked projects pork. Each and every one of mine came from my
transportation department, prioritized for vital projects for the
economy of my city.
Yet, the Washington Post this morning, under a headline about,
``Record Pork'' goes on to say the following: ``Among these earmarked
projects are $24 million to replace the crumbling 61-year-old
Missisquoi Bay Bridge in northwestern Vermont, which local officials
described as an accident waiting to happen.'' If that is so, how could
it be pork?
Mr. Speaker, this is not pork. This is steak. If we want to continue
to be a prime rib country, we better pass this bill quick.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, when the President talks about building a bridge to the
21st Century, this is the bill that lays the infrastructure that makes
that bridge a reality. This bill saves and creates well-paying American
jobs by making sure we have the means to efficiently move the goods and
products we produce.
But transportation is not just about moving goods and people from one
place to another. It is about economic opportunity, new business,
expanding commerce, a cleaner environment, safety for our children, and
a higher quality of life.
Better infrastructure means more time with our families. How many
hours do we waste sitting in traffic because our roads are inadequate.
Too many, Mr. Chairman. Too many. This is the bill that does something
about that.
Mass transit and road improvements may not be glamorous work, but it
is important work. The success of almost everything else we do depends
on our transit and infrastructure. At a time when most of our major
trading competitors are making large investments in new infrastructure,
we cannot afford to lag behind.
The solution we need is a national one. Our commerce is no longer
confined or constrained to national, much less State boundaries, so our
system is only as strong as its weakest link.
If one State has a great system, and the next State has an outdated
one, both States suffer. In the next century, we will lose crucial
economic ground if we allow these gaps to remain.
Close to my home, traffic on the bridges and roads that connect New
York and New Jersey is reaching the breaking point. Ironically, the
reason is a good one. Our ports are bringing in businesses and jobs and
trade. But if we do not improve and innovate these connections, our
growth will literally be held back by our inability to handle the flow
of people and goods.
So we are using ferries to get people back and forth, 6 million
people annually. And by 2005, we will need ferry service for 8 million
or more. By making that investment today, we are able to handle the
growth of tomorrow.
This is a cost reduction measure. It saves money. Ferries do not
require the construction of costly infrastructure. They reduce single
occupancy vehicle use. They are more energy-efficient.
This bill was put together with creative solutions like this one in
mind. Yes, it is a bill of many individual projects, but it is a
national plan. The projects in the bill make up that national plan, and
we deserve to be supportive of it.
I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for their
vision in putting this in before the House.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), an important member of our
committee.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, this is truly a historic day for the United
States. H.R. 2400 is a magnificent work which addresses many
transportation-related concerns of our country.
For example, section 205 contains the most comprehensive antidrinking
and driving measures ever put into legislation. The bill also
reauthorizes the Discretionary Bridge Program that gives our State the
tools to repair and replace crumbling bridges.
It also, though, Mr. Chairman, talks about safety. If I can
particularly make a point in my district, there was an accident in 1992
where a car was trying to swerve around another truck. Steel coils fell
off, and people were killed. More recently, another truck carrier
swerved to avoid a disabled vehicle on the same stretch of road. Just
last month, six people lost their lives.
H.R. 2400 provides us with the opportunity to fix that stretch of
road and other roads all across the country where safety is a concern.
Can anybody in the Chamber tell the families of these victims and
others that these are unnecessary projects? Can anybody tell the New
York State Thruway Authority that this is not a worthy project or a
pork project?
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It deserves our attention, and it
deserves passage today.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2400. I want to
begin by thanking my Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster), and my ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) for their leadership and tenacity in bringing this bill to
the floor today.
The Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of 1998
is desperately needed and a long time and coming.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest there is not a single Member of this House
who cannot appreciate the tremendous needs of this Nation's
infrastructure. I know there are Members who will vote against this
measure, and I fully appreciate the sincerity of their convictions. But
I believe they are being a wee bit shortsighted.
Transportation is the engine driving this Nation's economy. To the
extent transportation fails, our economy fails. We cannot ignore these
needs any longer.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is important for other reasons as well. There
are areas of this country which have unique needs, and this bill
addresses those needs. There are areas for which, for whatever reason,
have historically been shortchanged in the distribution of trust fund
revenue. H.R. 2400 brings fairness to this process, and I strongly
support it.
[[Page H1894]]
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of rhetoric and histrionics about
demonstration projects. A great many headlines of today highlight this
frenzy. But I take a different view. I came to Washington to represent
the people of South Carolina's Sixth District. I was eager to request
funding for projects my district needs. But I resent the implication
from anyone who thinks otherwise. My requests represent the views of
the local officials of the towns and communities I represent.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to address the provision of this bill
which provides for opportunity for owners of small businesses to
participate in the American dream. The DBE program is not a set-aside
program, nor is it a quota. It sets reasonable goals for full
participation in a highly competitive process, and I believe this bill,
with all it contains, deserves passage.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), a very important member of our
committee.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today
in support of H.R. 2400, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation
Equity Act. There has been a lot of talk about the budget issues
surrounding the highway bill, but there are some things that I think
that people are forgetting to mention.
First of all, the fact that the American people have already paid for
this bill. We paid for it this morning. We filled our cars; came to
work. We will pay for it this evening on the way home when we stop at
the gas station to top off the tank.
It makes no sense to impose a national highway gas tax, collect the
money from this tax, then use that money to fund wasteful Washington
spending. That is exactly what has been happening here for years.
Finally, thanks to the work of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster) and others, we are doing the right thing, and we are returning
honesty to the budgeting process by using the motor fuels tax for the
purpose for which it was created, intended, and that is the Highway
Trust Fund.
I want to credit the chairman again for the work that he has done in
seeing that we spend more fuel taxes on roads, bridges, and highways in
keeping our promise to the American people. It returns honesty to the
budgeting process, and it forces Washington to keep its word on
transportation funding. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to
support H.R. 2400.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer)
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) each will control 15
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I bring to the attention of the House the provisions of
title XI, the revenue title H.R. 2400.
The revenue title provides the necessary financing for our Nation's
surface transportation needs by extending for 6 years current law
excise taxes on gasoline, diesel, and other transportation taxes which
flow into the Highway Trust Fund.
By continuing the dedication of these monies to the Highway Trust
Fund, we fulfill the expectations of the American people as the highway
user charges they pay are reinvested in our country's infrastructure.
Furthermore, I am pleased to inform my colleague that the Ways and
Means revenue title would transfer 6.8 cents per gallon tax on
motorboat gasoline from the general fund to the Aquatic Resources Trust
Fund. This is very, very important to those who use boats and the
fishermen, because the money spent out of that fund enhances boater
safety and protects the environment for millions of Americans who fish
in the great outdoors.
In addition, title XI would repeal the 4.3 cents per gallon tax on
railroad diesel fuel, which now goes to the general fund. I believe
that the Nation's railroads have been unfairly penalized with a tax
which has no relationship to railroads or to transportation. This will
tend to level the playing field between the way that we tax various
forms of transportation.
Finally, the Committee on Ways and Means revenue title would repeal
after the year 2000 the excise tax on truck tires and tread rubber,
which is generally perceived as a nuisance by truckers and the IRS.
I believe that this is a good package that addresses our Nation's
critical transportation needs while providing appropriate tax relief. I
urge support for the Committee on Ways and Means revenue title.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to praise the work that the committee has done
on H.R. 2400 and to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer),
chairman, for the work that the Committee on Ways and Means did, be it
ever such a small part of an otherwise Herculean undertaking.
The 6-year extension of the Highway Trust Fund will provide much-
needed infrastructure, maintenance, and expansion for this country's
economic future. It does an important job. It will create jobs, ease
bottlenecks, and will help the traffic flow in the Bay area of
California, which is of particular local interest to me, as the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has explained.
It is paid for in a variety of ways. But I have one small reservation
with the bill. That redounds not to the leadership of the committee of
jurisdiction, but I am afraid to the leadership, budget leadership on
the other side of the aisle, and that is that the bill is not paid for.
I would be a much happier and more enthusiastic supporter if I knew
that other items were off the table. I am led to understand that the 24
or $25 billion shortfall in this bill is not going to be taken out of
veterans programs. Well, great for old veterans like me.
{time} 1500
But I would like some assurance that that will not leave children at
risk, and that will not mean that the $24 or 5 billion is going to come
out of education, or that is not going to come out of programs to
improve public safety or housing for the homeless. There are many
programs in this country that will be competing for that $24 billion,
and I would be much more comfortable and feel that we were doing the
more responsible job if the leadership of this House had told us just
exactly how they intend to come up with that shortfall.
I do not like legislating in the blind, and it is very nice to tell
my constituents that I am bringing home all kinds of worthy projects to
the San Francisco Bay area and to the East Bay. I am afraid that
perhaps later this summer I am going to have to deliver the bad news,
which is how we are going to pay for this wonderful Easter present.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) for a colloquy.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Archer), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways
and Means, for yielding to me for a question.
I have worked closely with the chairman for several months to amend
H.R. 2400, and would like to thank him for his willingness to work with
me and our colleagues from other States who are not served by Amtrak.
Those States include Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Oklahoma and Wyoming. What
I would like to have offered in amendment, the gentleman from Texas
expressed, in conversations we have had, his concerns about doing so.
As my colleague knows, I attempted to attach the same amendment to
H.R. 2477, the Amtrak Privatization and Reform Act, but ran into
jurisdictional and revenue questions at that time. The provision would
amend the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 relating to tax
[[Page H1895]]
refunds for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Amtrak.
Therefore, a revenue estimate of the amendment was necessary prior to
enactment. At my request, the Joint Committee on Taxation conducted a
revenue estimate of the amendment and determined it would have no
revenue impact.
The 1997 tax provisions specifically would provide Amtrak with access
to $2.3 billion. Of that $2.3 billion, the law also sets aside a
portion of the fund for non-Amtrak States. However, the allowable uses
are very limited. In fact, the law would allow those funds to be used
only for intercity passenger rail service and for intercity bus
services.
While my State, the State of South Dakota, does not have intercity
passenger rail service, the State has been clear in stating that it
would put available funds to use for intercity bus service. In fact,
the State already is putting some of those funds to use. All the same,
the State would like to have more flexibility in how it uses those
funds.
For that reason I drafted an amendment that would allow non-Amtrak
States to use the funds for other transportation priorities such as
State-owned rail operations, rural transit and transit services for the
elderly and disabled, rural air service, and highway-rail grade
crossing projects. These are common sense and necessary uses. In fact,
the Senate earlier saw the value of this amendment, and during
consideration of Senate Bill 1173 adopted a similar amendment.
I nonetheless appreciate the concerns expressed by the gentleman from
Texas regarding authorizing jurisdiction of the amendment. At the same
time I understand the gentleman from Texas would not object to this
provision in conference. Is my understanding correct?
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THUNE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman from South
Dakota that it is not normal procedure for us to announce a negotiating
position on the floor of the House where there is a difference between
a Senate provision and a House provision. Let me simply say that we
will try to work this out equitably in the conference, that I have
talked with the gentleman from South Dakota a number of times about
this and I personally do not have any objection to his request, and I
think it is appropriate and we will do the best that we can in the
conference.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Archer), and would say that for States that do not have rail passenger
service, each of these transportation needs are appropriate and
important alternatives to rail passenger service. The amendment in my
view represents sound, common sense policy that simply allows non-
Amtrak States to make the best, most worthwhile use of the funds that
are provided for transportation needs.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his hard work and
commitment to work with me to address the concerns of my State of South
Dakota and the other States that are not served by Amtrak. He, our
colleagues in the House, the taxpayers of this Nation should have every
assurance that the funds provided to non-Amtrak States will address
important transportation needs in each of those States.
And I also add that I would like to thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, for his assistance. He expressed his
support of this measure in the past, and as a result, both he and his
staff on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have been
extremely helpful in this effort to see that these funds are put to the
best possible use. I would like to say as well that I thank the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) for her support and assistance,
as well as support from the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the gentlewoman from Hawaii
(Mrs. Mink).
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), a respected member of the
Committee on Ways and Means, for a colloquy.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, as I review the tax portion of the bill that we are
voting on today, I note that we are considering the elimination of the
4.3 cent per gallon deficit reduction tax on railroad fuel. As you
know, Mr. Chairman, this tax was imposed on the railroad industry in a
1993 reconciliation act, and it was put as well on other modes of
transportation, including the inland barge industry.
As we head toward the conference on this bill, Mr. Chairman, I would
appreciate it if the gentleman would work with me and others to explore
the extension of this repeal to the barge industry, to make sure that
we maintain a level playing field between competing modes of
transportation. It is my understanding that the tax on inland barge
traffic generates a rather modest contribution to the Treasury, and
paying for it is not going to be extremely costly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for
a comment from another member of our committee and the former chairman
of the Transportation Task Force of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer comments in support
of the gentleman from Louisiana. Last year members of the
Transportation Task Force studied the waterway tax and trust fund
structure with regard to equity. In light of the fact the current tax
that applies to waterway uses has generated a surplus to the trust
fund, and since the legislation before us today will eliminate the
deficit reduction tax as it applies to the rail industry, I join in the
request that we work toward an equitable elimination of the deficit
reduction tax as it applies to the barge industry.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer)
chairman of the committee.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the important role that the
barge industry plays in the economies both of Louisiana and Texas and
other States in this country, and I appreciate the comments from the
chairman of the Transportation Task Force, our colleague from Georgia.
Accordingly, I will be pleased to work with my colleagues, subject to
budgetary constraints of course, to ensure that we maintain tax equity
among the various modes of transportation, and I thank my colleague for
bringing this up and asserting this point.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), chairman of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Upton). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a very vigorous advocate for transportation and a
distinguished member of our committee.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for
the time.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard a few Members come to the floor and seen
some press accounts that there is too much in this bill. Now the
question will be, too much? Is it that we are meeting and
overfulfilling the transportation and infrastructure needs in the
United States? No, not at all. In fact, this bill will still leave us
with a $30 billion per year deficit in transportation, $16 billion for
highways and $14 billion for transit, 254,000 miles of pavement in poor
condition, one out of three highway bridges structurally deficient or
obsolete, one out of every two transit yard stations and bridges for
mass transit in poor condition.
In my own State we need an additional $244 million a year to meet our
needs for preservation and maintenance and $351 million for capital
improvements. It is not too much in terms of the needs of the country.
Now is it too much in terms of what we have to pay for
transportation? No. In fact this bill will not spend all the money
which the American people are paying in taxes dedicated to
transportation. Every time an American drives to the pump they pay 18.4
cents a gallon gas tax, and this bill, as good as it
[[Page H1896]]
is, as robust as it is, will only spend about 14 to 15 cents of that
tax, and the rest will go elsewhere in the Federal budget. It will go
to deficit reduction, or it will go to pay for secret programs at the
CIA, or over to the Pentagon or somewhere else, maybe for tax cuts for
the wealthy.
That is not why Americans pay a gas tax, and there should be no
diversion of the gas tax money until every infrastructure need of this
country is met and up to date. So it is not too much to ask that we
fulfill the needs, and it is not too much to ask that we spend every
penny of that dedicated regressive tax on the transportation needs of
this country.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Poshard), a distinguished member of our committee.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for
yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to reference some parts of this bill that
perhaps other Members have not spoken about. In addition to the core
programs of ISTEA, BESTEA offers two other important programs that I
think are extremely important. The high risk road safety construction
program will give States incentives to address their worst safety
problems, and the high cost interstate rehabilitation program will
provide additional funds for major projects that are extremely
important in cost in our interstate system. Moreover, BESTEA permits
continued flexibility to allow for a productive relationship between
all levels of government when it comes to transportation spending.
Another important provision in this bill is language that would
benefit rural areas by guaranteeing relief for Illinois farmers from
Department of Transportation regulations concerning the local transport
of agricultural materials, including pesticides, fertilizers and fuel.
States have traditionally been allowed to set their own exceptions to
Federal regulations for these farming necessities when involved in
farm-to-farm, field-to-farm and retail-to-farm activities.
{time} 1515
However, Federal standards proposed in 1996 would force farmers to
comply with costly and burdensome documentation rules meant for over-
the-road trucks that regularly haul hazardous materials on a regular
basis.
The language in BESTEA allows States to retain the ability to
regulate these matters on a regular basis. This will save farmers and
retailers hundreds of thousands of dollars in compliance costs and save
valuable time for our farm community. I greatly appreciate the efforts
of my colleagues, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), and the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Buyer), who join me for fighting for inclusion of this language.
I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster)
and the gentleman from Minnesota, the ranking member (Mr. Oberstar),
for their tireless efforts on behalf of this legislation. I think the
passage of BESTEA will benefit the entire Nation and ensure that the
transportation needs of America are met, and I am proud to have been a
part of this historic process.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Montana, (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud the chairman for his efforts with
regard to this bill. I support the chairman's efforts to take the
Highway Trust Fund off budget and share his commitment to
infrastructure. Unfortunately, I cannot support this bill and that is
because it is not fair to Montana and Western States.
Mr. Chairman, Montanans pay the highest gas taxes in the Nation, 27.5
cents per gallon. In fact, on a per capita basis, they pay the highest
State gas taxes, and are fourth in the Nation in how much they pay in
Federal gas taxes. We have 31,950 lane miles of roads in Montana. That
is 1.5 percent of the Nation's roads, and we are trying to pay for it
with three-tenths of 1 percent of the population.
This bill is unfair to Montana because it reduces the funding formula
for Montana by about 26 percent while increasing the formula for the
funding in most States by factors of 40 to 50 percent. In addition, it
reduces the funding for places like Montana that have high portions of
Federal lands by changing that formula, and, even worse, the congestion
mitigation air quality changes also hurt Montana.
I would urge the chairman to join with the Senate in adopting the
Senate versions of the bill. Enough is enough.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to my good friend from Montana
and point out that Montana gets back $1.35 for every dollar it sends
into the trust fund from this bill, and, indeed, there are only four
States out of the 50 States which get a better return. I do not
begrudge that money to Montana.
I understand it is a rural State, has a low population, but I think
Montana does extremely well, and I think everybody should understand
that.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Mascara), the gentleman from the Mon
Valley.
Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member from Minnesota
for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Bud Shuster), our committee chairman; the gentleman from Minnesota
(Jim Oberstar), the ranking member, as well as our leaders from the
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, the gentleman from California
(Tom Petri) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Nick Rahall), for
their strong leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor.
Without their firm bipartisan resolve, none of this would have been
possible. As a former local official deeply committed to economic
development projects, I truly appreciate the significance of this
transportation bill.
America's economy depends heavily on the interstate highway system.
For example, nearly $6 trillion worth of goods are transported over our
Nation's highways, yet we are allowing our roads to deteriorate. Over
the past 25 years, road use has grown more than 15 times the highway
capacity.
This has left many of our roads and bridges in need of serious
repair. In fact, the Department of Transportation has determined that
12,000 accidents occur each year as a result of poor highway
conditions. Thirty percent end up in fatalities.
Furthermore, 59 percent of all roads and 31 percent of all bridges in
America are in need of repair, or are structurally deficient. We must
begin investing now to improve the quality and safety of our roads.
BESTEA will allow us to make these improvements, providing funding for
highway projects across America, such as the Mon-Fayette Expressway in
my district, but we must begin now. We cannot delay completion of this
bill, because many States have already begun their road building
projects. If we do not finish our job here, States could lose an entire
construction season.
I urge all Members to join me in support of this bill to fix our
Nation's interstates, to improve highway safety, to promote economic
development in our communities, and, as all of you have said, to build
America.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs. Fowler.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
2400. This bill has been falsely accused of many things, but perhaps
the most egregious falsehood is that this bill signals an end to the
Republican revolution. Nothing could be further from the truth.
When Republicans took control of Congress, we promised to change the
way we do business. We made a Contract with America and followed
through on it. BESTEA fulfills another contract by ending the practice
of misusing gas tax revenues.
For every gallon of gas we put in our tanks, we pay 18.3 cents to the
Federal Government. Frankly, that is a pretty high rate of taxation.
But we pay the tax because the revenues are supposed to be used so we
do not have to sit in traffic, incur the wrath of crumbling roads,
damage our cars or lose a friend to unsafe highways.
The tax is a contract between American motorists and the Federal
Government, but for many years now Congress
[[Page H1897]]
has simply failed to live up to our part of the contract.
BESTEA fulfills our deal with the American taxpayer. It spends the
gas tax revenue on roads and takes the Highway Trust Fund off budget,
ending the practice of spending the revenues on nonhighway-related
needs.
This bill also restores faith to taxpayers in States like Florida who
have been forced to fund the infrastructure priorities of other States,
receiving only 77 cents on every dollar citizens in Florida pay. Under
BESTEA, States will get at least 90 cents of every dollar allocated by
formula, a tremendous improvement.
I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster),
who has fought for these gains and listened to the concerns of States
like Florida. Today we have a chance to vote for honest budgeting,
funding equity, economic growth and safer highways. I encourage my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
(Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for their
leadership, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) for
his courage and steadfastness throughout this struggle, which has been
an inspiration to all of us on both sides of the aisle.
We thank the gentleman and his staff, and the staff of the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). They have had to deal with a lot of
issues, and they worked hard for a long period of time. We thank them
profusely.
Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of the people of California's 50th
Congressional District in strong support of BESTEA, because BESTEA is
best for jobs. My constituents have many interests, but their most
important ones can be summarized in three words: Jobs, jobs, jobs.
Jobs, so they can support themselves and their families; jobs, so they
can raise and educate their kids; jobs, so they can contribute to our
community; jobs, so they can enjoy their recreation; and jobs, so they
can provide for their retirement.
This legislation addresses these concerns in an equitable manner,
renews important transportation programs and creates these much-needed
jobs.
Contrary to all the hype and hysteria, this bill is not a budget
buster. It restores the truth in the budgeting process by accessing the
Nation's Transportation Trust Funds.
As everyone has said before me, this bill will restore the trust the
American people place in their trust funds. This is an investment in
our infrastructure. It is desperately needed. We have created the
strongest economy in the world through our transportation
infrastructure, and this continues that policy and guarantees our
future. It provides us with the opportunity to again demonstrate that
we have an investment policy on a national scale. We must take this
opportunity now.
Mr. Chairman, I will vote for my constituents' interests and vote for
BESTEA. I encourage my colleagues to do likewise. Remember, it is about
jobs, jobs, jobs.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for the
terrific job he has done on this bill. It is not about pork, it is not
about politics, but it is about saving lives. Since I come from a rural
area that does not have a four-lane highway all the way across it, I am
particularly pleased that we will be able to make significant
improvements in our infrastructure.
I am also very pleased that the bill includes a significant increase
in funding for the Highway Bridge Program and does promote the
innovative seismic retrofit technologies such as carbon fiber
composites for bridges located in regions like mine, which lie along
the New Madrid Fault, and which potentially faces catastrophic
infrastructure damage due to earthquakes.
I am also pleased that this bill includes a provision that expresses
the sense of Congress that offsets to the spending in the bill should
not be derived through any change in Veterans Administration programs
or benefits. Just as this bill reaffirms our commitment to the American
public to use their gas tax dollars to ensure safe highways, roads and
bridges, we also must reaffirm our commitment to our Nation's veterans.
Now, while I believe this bill is a tremendous step forward, I do
want to say I am extremely dismayed that the ethanol tax incentive is
not extended in the bill, Mr. Chairman. This incentive is a vital boost
to farm income, decreases our dependence on foreign oil, provides
consumers with a cleaner burning fuel and creates good jobs.
Ethanol is a proven industry that benefits our local farmers in
southeast Missouri and others around the country. It provides clear
advantages to the broader American public, and the tax incentives
should be extended. I strongly urge that during the conference
negotiations on H.R. 2400, the House adopt the Senate language which
authorizes the ethanol tax incentive through the year 2007.
With that said, I fully support this legislation, and commend the
chairman for the terrific job he has done.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the distinguished voice of the
great outdoors and of livable cities.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding
me time.
Mr. Chairman, there has been much talk about America's future and
fiscal stability in the course of this debate. I rise to support H.R.
2400 because it gives the tools for America's communities to control
their own destinies.
You have heard and will hear more from the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), and others about how this bill is good for the safety of the
American public, how it provides important resources to improve vital
transit programs. It is good for the environment, for rail passengers
and freight. It is good for bicyclists. It is good for the motoring
public, because it promotes the free flow of a balanced transportation
system and, for those people who do drive their cars, makes it safer
for them, more convenient, less congested.
But I want to focus, if I could, on what difference this bill makes
by making America's citizens and their local governments full partners
in our transportation system, because BESTEA gives the tools for
livable communities to stop sprawl and revitalize existing communities.
Every year we spend billions of dollars dealing with the symptoms of
dysfunctional communities. The Congress spends money on economic
development, on crime, on education that is largely attempting to deal
with what has happened after communities go over the brink.
What is critical about BESTEA and the resources that are directed is
that it gives communities unprecedented abilities to manage those
resources in conjunction with State and local communities to strengthen
them before they deteriorate.
I posit, Mr. Chairman, that any careful analysis of the economic
benefit that we will derive as a Nation revitalizing these central
cities, preventing the deterioration of the first ring of suburbs and
so on throughout the metropolitan areas, conservatively it is going to
return far more money than any modest increase.
{time} 1530
When we couple that with the economic benefits from cleaner air, less
congestion, and a wide range of important economic infrastructure
investments for the next century, I think any short-term increase in
funding is going to be dwarfed. BESTEA is good for the fiscal health of
America. It is good for the health of American communities.
I, too, add my thanks to the bipartisan leadership of this committee
that has given this Congress the most important environmental
legislation we are going to see for the remainder of this century and
on into the next millennium.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia
[[Page H1898]]
(Mr. Davis), a valued member of our committee.
(Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out some
of the provisions in section 140 of the bill entitled ``Quality through
competition.''
As I understand the provisions, it reflects the following important
points:
First, it is going to provide for substantial savings to States by
providing for a single, consistent rule for the administration and
accounting of costs for engineering and design contracts that are
funded with Federal-aid highway funds.
Second, it acknowledges and permits the use of the expedited process
in the existing FAR, which is applicable to qualifications-based
selection procedures for architect, engineering, and related services
of smaller projects which fall below the threshold of $100,000.
Third, by using the term ``simplified acquisition procedures,'' it
does not change or authorize the avoidance of the contract
administration and audit requirements specified in the section.
Fourth, this section provides no authority for a contracting
authority to waive the requirements of the contract administration or
single audit provisions provided in this section.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania, is my
understanding correct?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely correct in his
observation of the effects of section 140 of the bill.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Just to continue, Mr. Chairman, in support of
this bill, the Trust Fund dollars are like user fees people pay at the
gas pumps to come back and improve our Nation's transportation system.
This bill, instead of spending Highway Trust Fund dollars collected at
the gas pumps on defense or health care, deficit reduction, or some
other worthy endeavor, simply spends the Trust Fund user fees for their
intended use.
In local government, when I was in Fairfax County, if we had raided a
trust fund and used it to spend the dollars for water or sewer or
another use, we would have gone to jail; but at the Federal level it is
perfectly legal to do that. But this starts to straighten that and
bring some fiscal accountability to the Trust Fund dollars for our
taxpayers.
Secondly, there have been some comments about demonstration projects
or earmarking. In my region, Northern Virginia, over the last 25 years
we have been consistently shortchanged from the State government. Money
that goes through Richmond does not come back to Northern Virginia in
any way, shape or form to our proportion of highway use, population,
vehicle miles or anything else. Yet we have the greatest need for
transportation dollars. We have historically been shortchanged by the
State.
This legislation contains over $10 million for the completion of the
Fairfax County Parkway through Reston, $25 million for road widening of
Route 123, $10 million for the Virginia Railway Express, a transit
alternative down the 95 corridor.
These projects are not my projects, they are not political projects,
they were requested and coordinated with the local governments in that
region, who knew that if they had to wait for Richmond to deliver, they
may be waiting a decade. We are putting them out on top.
I applaud the Chairman and the Ranking Member, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Jim Oberstar), for addressing these needs for our
region, which has had traffic jams and is probably the traffic jam
capital of the country. This legislation will go a long way to
alleviate that.
I strongly support this measure and ask my colleagues to support it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to
stand in favor of BESTEA today. I owe a lot of gratitude to our leaders
on this committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the rest.
This bill provides resources to meet America's infrastructure needs,
not frivolous, but needs that have been expressed by persons throughout
this Nation, and not just by Members here, but all the people that we
represent.
This bill provides an unprecedented commitment to improve safety on
America's highways and to help reduce the 40,000 annual deaths from
motor vehicles. It improves the safety for commercial motor vehicles.
The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program has been refined to focus
on performance-based goals, and funding for this program has been
significantly increased. That is important. It strengthens and
emphasizes our Federal commitment to the national systems of
transportation that facilitate interstate travel.
Being from Texas, a border State, it creates a new border
infrastructure program to ensure that needs from NAFTA-related trade
and safety issues are addressed. These are very important components
for the State of Texas and for our Nation.
It significantly increases funding for the Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Program, while making some minor adjustments to the
program's eligibility. All of these areas help the entire Nation, but
especially does it help Texas, a very large State with lots of people
with lots of cars that they hate to give up. There are elements of this
bill that will address that area.
Not only is it a big State, it is one of the fastest-growing States.
We have so many people on the highways every day and on our streets and
roads getting to work. It is this bill that addresses those issues and
helps to solve our problem. It is our responsibility as legislators to
make sure that our transportation system is as safe and accessible as
possible.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay), the Majority Whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to finally get this bill
to the floor. I rise in support of this bill. If the Nation's
infrastructure is its circulatory system, then BESTEA keeps our Nation
very healthy.
I commend the Chairman and the Ranking Member for their yeoman
efforts in putting this bill together; and, in particular, I would like
to thank the Chairman for addressing the concerns of our Nation's donor
States, whose taxpayers for years have been shortchanged when it comes
to meeting their transportation needs.
For nearly 2 years, I have lamented the lack of fairness and logic
when it comes to how transportation dollars are allocated. Based on
such outdated factors as the 1980 census, States like Texas have been
receiving an average return of 76 cents on the dollar. As a result,
only one out of every three projects of critical need has been able to
be met in my own State of Texas. So I introduced the bill called Step
21 to streamline the transportation program and bring equity to funding
formulas.
While I did not get as much as I wanted in this bill in the way of
streamlining, I am very pleased to note that BESTEA incorporates many
of our formula recommendations. The most important element is that
BESTEA guarantees States the 95 percent minimal allocation on all
formula programs and highway projects, which works out to about a 90
percent minimum return.
I am also extremely pleased with the creation of a national corridor
program in this bill. This means we are finally on the road to
completing I-69, a multi-State trade corridor of national and
international significance, extending from Michigan's border with
Canada all the way through Texas, where it connects to the Mexican
highway system. I-69 corridor States are vital to international trade,
as they carry 52 percent of the U.S. truck-borne trade with Mexico and
33 percent of U.S. truck-borne trade with Canada.
Another issue I am deeply involved in is in the Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise Program, which has been at the center of a lawsuit
affecting the transit agency in my district, Houston Metro. Metro was
prohibited from implementing its DBE program by Federal court order,
and for some 18 months FTA cut off Federal funds that
[[Page H1899]]
it had pledged to Metro as part of a full funding grant agreement.
Metro was caught between two branches of the Federal Government. I am
very pleased that this committee has recognized this problem and taken
care of it.
In conclusion, I just urge the committee to maintain these provisions
in conference. I know it is tough being in conference with the Senate,
but, in particular, it is vital that the conference report include a
guaranteed rate of return that is no less than those included in this
House bill. Donor States will not stand for another 6 years of funding
inequity.
I once again congratulate the Chairman and the Ranking Member, and
say, just quickly, a job well done.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
I would say to the distinguished Majority Whip that I can assure him
that we will stand, on a bipartisan basis, in support of the principles
that we have crafted so vigorously and, as the gentleman pointed out,
so astutely in this legislation. We appreciate his support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Barcia).
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
It is a pleasure to offer a few remarks in support of this tremendous
transportation bill, and I want to compliment all of our distinguished
members in the Chamber who worked on drafting what I believe is to be a
very equitable and reasonable bill regarding transportation spending at
the Federal level for the next 6 years.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2400 and urge my
colleagues to make a strong showing in support of this landmark
legislation. This bill means a lot to the citizens of my Fifth District
of Michigan, to our State, and to the Nation as a whole.
I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster)
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the ranking minority
members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for their leadership on this critical
issue.
Mr. Chairman, I want to focus on two aspects of the legislation which
have drawn unwarranted criticism. First, the budgetary effects of the
bill have been completely misrepresented.
Some claim to be outraged at the levels of spending in this bill. I
would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the American people should be
outraged that this bill represents an increase at all. Our government
has for far too long ignored the future health of our economy by
disinvesting in our infrastructure.
The safe and efficient movement of goods and people makes this
country great and our economy strong. But over the past 2 decades, we
have fallen far behind our global competitors in our commitment to our
transportation system.
This bill is about tax fairness. To my Democratic colleagues, I say,
they are concerned about tax cuts which benefit the wealthy members of
our society. This bill is a tax return to our Nation's working
families. Those who use our transportation system pay for our
transportation system, but it is not fair to withhold those taxes to
mask spending in other areas.
The Congress has not followed through on its promise to use those
taxes exclusively for transportation. Instead, the money in the Trust
Fund has been allowed to grow while our citizens' repair bills rise.
That is inexcusable. This bill will reverse that practice.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman for
yielding time to me, and I commend him and the Ranking Member on this
legislation and, in particular, for including funds for the widening of
U.S. Highway 192.
Mr. Chairman, U.S. Highway 192 is a dangerous two-lane road that
connects the south Orlando-Kissimmee-St. Cloud area with the coastal
communities of Palm Bay and Melbourne, communities of about 250,000
combined.
I became interested in the widening of this road when a physician
colleague of mine lost his wife on this road when a truck crossed the
midline and she was killed. Ever since then, my wife will not allow me
to drive on this road with her at any time.
Just last week, a truck crossed the midline. The driver was killed,
closing the road, a major highway connecting two major areas in
Florida, closing the road for a week because of herbicide that was
spilled all over the road.
Widening U.S. 192 is not pork. Widening U.S. 192 will save lives.
Closing a road for a week because of a midline crossing accident
involving a truck hurts our economies. It will save lives. It will be
good for our communities. It will be good for the economy.
I challenge those who would call this pork to come to my district and
talk to the people who have to travel on this road, a road that should
have been widened 10 years ago.
Again, I thank both the Chairman and the Ranking Member.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Los Angeles, California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald), the voice of Southern California.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, over the last 2 years I have heard a lot of talk about
building bridges to the 21st century. Let us talk about building roads
and bridges for America's future, real roads and real bridges that are
traveled on by real Americans. BESTEA builds those roads and builds
those bridges and provides the infrastructure that will allow our
Nation to move into the 21st century.
I come from the most populous State in the Nation, the great State of
California, with 32 million people, 25 million registered vehicles, and
moves 30 percent of our Nation's freight traffic on our highways.
Clearly, we have the most traveled roads and bridges of any State
represented in this House and contribute more in gas taxes to the
Highway Trust Fund.
As one of the cochairs of the California ISTEA Task Force, I, along
its founder, my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Jay Kim),
held a number of hearings throughout our great State. In those hearings
our State and local elected officials, municipal planning organizations
and citizens at large told us one thing: Pass BESTEA. It is a good bill
for California, and we all know that what is good for California is
good for the Nation.
Transportation provides substantial economic benefit to our country.
According to the study by the Department of Transportation, 42,000 jobs
are created for every $1 billion we invest in highways, transit, and
bridges.
{time} 1545
How can we expect to compete in today's global economy without a
world class highway and transit system?
I would like to congratulate both my chairman and my ranking member
on doing a yeoman's job on bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor.
I will urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to dismiss the empty
rhetoric about demonstration projects and focus on our Nation's
infrastructure needs to compete in this global economy. Let us move
America.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Chairman Shuster) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak about honesty and integrity, and this
bill is a bill of integrity. I have been concerned, unhappy, and upset
for almost 30 years now, since transportation funding was placed on
budget, surpluses were allowed to accumulate, and the money was used to
shield the size of the national deficit from the American taxpayers.
That is wrong, and I am pleased that this bill ends that practice.
Mr. Chairman, the money that the public pays for gas taxes, under
this bill will be used for the purpose for which it was intended, and
that is transportation funding. No longer will it be used to disguise
the size of the deficit.
Some people have called this bill a budget buster. If it were a
budget buster, then we should reduce the tax.
But, Mr. Chairman, there is a good reason it is not a budget buster.
Section 1001 makes it very clear that if the
[[Page H1900]]
expenditures in this bill exceed the budget guidelines, spending will
have to be cut back or offsets will have to be found, and we will take
care of that through the budget process.
One other important issue of equity. I come from a donor State. That
is a polite way of saying that Michigan has contributed more to road
funding in this country than it has received back. In fact, under
ISTEA, 76 cents of every dollar we sent to Washington came back to
Michigan. Under this bill we will be treated much better. This bill
achieves equity in funding, equity in taxation, and is an honest bill
that serves the people well.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise), the ranking member of our
Subcommittee on Railroads and a strong advocate for transportation.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank very much, and I think the
country owes a vote of thanks, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Chairman Shuster) for his tireless efforts to bring this bill to the
floor, as well as to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the
ranking member, for all he has done and for the bipartisan effort,
Republicans and Democrats working together. This is going to be the
major economic growth package that passes this Congress this year. And,
indeed, it is going to be one of the most significant growth packages
to pass the Congress in many a year.
It does not do all that it could or should, but it sure does a lot
and begins to redress an imbalance that has been there for many years:
the fact that we are not investing significantly and not investing
enough in our infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, some have called this, yes, a budget buster, and so I
look at the $4 billion to $5 billion to maybe $6 billion over what was
projected initially per year that this could cost. I estimate that that
is roughly .003 of the total Federal budget in a year, and my guess is
that we are going to be able to find that money some place pretty
quickly, particularly because this bill brings about the economic
growth that we need to make sure that the economy keeps growing.
There is an imbalance that needs to be corrected. Fifty-nine percent
of the roads in this country need work of some significant amount.
Thirty-one percent nationally of all bridges, 47 percent in my State,
are in some way structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Think
about that: One out of three bridges that we cross is functionally
obsolete or structurally deficient. This bill begins to address that.
Mr. Chairman, it begins to finally invest in our infrastructure. I do
not mind standing in line behind orange barrels in rush hour if the
orange barrel is about construction. I hate it when they are just about
ordinary maintenance and nothing is being improved to speed commerce
and the flow of traffic.
Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of bill that we all want to be
supporting. This is a bill that grows America. This is a bill that
leads to a lot of other things that we want our country to be.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease).
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2400, the Building
Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act. America's roads,
bridges and related infrastructure are in critical need of repair.
Heightened congestion and the deterioration of many of our major
highways, bridges and roads can and must be repaired.
Many hours have been spent by many people on this bill. I commend the
efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the Indiana
delegation, the Governor of Indiana, and others both in the public and
private sectors throughout my congressional district, the Seventh of
Indiana, for their part in making this bill a reality. Through their
hard work, H.R. 2400 is a fairer bill for Indiana and other donor
States.
When Congress started the Highway Trust Fund, a gas tax was
instituted and a promise was made to Hoosiers and all Americans that
the dollars in this trust fund would be used for transportation
improvements. I believe this promise must be kept.
I also believe it would be wrong for me to return to Indiana for the
district work period without doing everything in my power do ensure
that this bill is fairly considered and adopted. Thousands of jobs in
Indiana and across America are at stake.
Mr. Chairman, with this bill we take a giant step toward that
objective and toward fairness in the distribution of taxpayer dollars.
I urge my colleagues to support this tremendously important
legislation.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), a very valuable member of our
committee.
(Mr. SANDLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, first let me say ``thank you'' to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, and to the
leadership on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2400, the Building
Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act. This bill is the
single most important piece of legislation that this Congress has
considered this year.
For too long the infrastructure has taken a back seat in this country
while the hard-earned dollars of our constituents have been used and
paid into the trust fund for the highways and we have used it to mask
the size of the deficit. With BESTEA we can say no more. No more.
Mr. Chairman, our constituents pay the gas tax with the expectation
that the money they pay will be spent to improve and enhance the roads
on which they drive. BESTEA meets their expectation. For the first time
in 29 years, the Highway Trust Fund will be moved off budget. This
important provision ensures these funds are used for their original
purpose, to repair and rebuild our Nation's roads and highways.
Our transportation system is in dire need of improvement and new
construction to meet the needs of the traveling public and business in
the future. Today more than ever we must begin the modernization of our
roads and bridges if we are to be able to handle our increasing
traffic.
Today, some will argue that BESTEA busts the budget. This argument is
clearly a weak attempt to make political points, and it is an argument
that is easily dismantled. All the new spending in BESTEA is more than
paid for by gas taxes. In fact, over the next 6 years the Highway Trust
Fund will collect about $2 billion more in taxes than it will pay under
BESTEA.
While I share the belief that the House should have completed its
budget negotiations prior to consideration of the bill, I do not
believe that local communities should be punished for this body's
inaction. Passing this bill now so our States can continue to receive
transportation funds is the right thing to do.
Mr. Chairman, I am especially pleased that BESTEA has improved upon
our current illogical funding formulas. Under the current formula,
Texas receives approximately 77 cents for each dollar that we
contribute to the Highway Trust Fund. Thanks to the efforts of the
leadership on both sides of the aisle in this committee, BESTEA
includes important language to guarantee that Texas and other donor
States receive at least 90 cents.
Finally, for those who would argue that this bill is ``pork,'' I
would say that any bill that creates tens of thousands of new jobs and
increases investments in the economy is not pork in my book. Indeed,
according to a 1993 CRS report, for every dollar spent building new
highways, the economy is estimated to rise by about $2.43. For every $1
billion of new highway construction spending, employment is estimated
to rise by 24,300 workers.
Mr. Chairman, we have put off the needs of our Nation's
infrastructure long enough. This is good for our constituents and good
for the economy. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
important legislation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton), my good friend.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, a couple of weeks ago Lake Champlain was
[[Page H1901]]
added as a sixth Great Lake over in the Senate, and it was added
primarily to take money away from the Sea Grant College Fund. There are
many of us here that thought it was highway robbery and are delighted
that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), as
well as Mr. Abraham and Mr. Leahy in the Senate, agreed to language
that removed it from the Great Lakes status.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend our two Michigan Members for their
work on this highway bill, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). For many years we have been a
donor State, and as one that believes in trust funds, we ought to use
the money in the trust funds for the purposes that they were intended
for, whether it is the Coast Guard or the Airport Trust Fund and
certainly the Highway Trust Fund.
I have said from the beginning that the money that we pay needs to be
used as it was intended instead of financing other parts of the
government. Either spend the money on our roads or give it back to us
in reducing our gas tax. This bill ensures that our gas tax dollars go
from the pump to the pavement. This is a good bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a vigorous advocate for transportation and a
valuable member of our committee.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, there is one overriding fact in here that
I would like to stress, if I may, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the
ranking member, who have done such a marvelous job. This bill, this
legislation would spend $18 billion less than the Federal Government
will collect in highway user taxes, not including the interest, over
the next 3 years. Over the next 6-year life of the legislation we are
about to vote on, it will spend $12 billion less than highway tax
receipts.
The facts are clear, Mr. Chairman, that there is within our domain
the facility to pay for what we are voting on here today. New Jersey is
a perfect example of a State that will be helped. It ranks fiftieth of
all the States in the Union in terms of return on our tax dollar, the
very basis of Federalism upon which the Constitution was written.
This legislation is going to help us correct the major deficiencies
we have in 44 percent of our bridges. Who will we turn to when another
bridge is shut down in New Jersey? In just a short 6 years, there have
been 230,000 new jobs in New Jersey as a result of the original
transportation legislation, which my predecessor, Bob Roe, of good
memory, was able to bring to this floor many, many times. We need a
little history here once in a while to keep us on track.
So, Mr. Chairman, we thank you for allowing us the time here today.
This is critical legislation. Let us get on with it and get it passed
to help America.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), my good friend.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2400. I
commend the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman
Shuster) and the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar),
as well as the distinguished chairman (Mr. Petri) and the distinguished
ranking member (Mr. Rahall) of the Subcommittee on Surface
Transportation, for their extraordinary work.
Mr. Chairman, I think this legislation lives up to its name. It will
improve the lives of all Americans by helping to create a more
efficient and safer highway system. I am pleased we are restoring
integrity to the trust fund.
Finally, we are returning to the principles that were established by
President Dwight D. Eisenhower for the Highway Trust Fund. When
Americans pay their Federal gasoline tax at the gas pump, they have
every right to expect that their money actually will be used for
transportation and not diverted to other purposes. Those funds do not
belong to OMB or the House Budget Committee. They belong to the
American people who pay those gasoline taxes to be used for
transportation, primarily highway construction and maintenance.
Mr. Chairman, this bill ensures that the taxes paid at the gas pump
will go toward constructing and improving our Nation's highways. Our
infrastructure is in desperate need of additional resources. The
gentleman from West Virginia a few minutes ago told us of the situation
with the country's obsolete bridges, functionally and structurally
deficient. This bill addresses these and other crying needs in our
infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to support this outstanding and, I
would say, very responsible legislation.
{time} 1600
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), representative of Green Bay.
Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time. I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan
historic investment, and I repeat the word ``investment,'' in our
Nation's infrastructure and transportation. I also join many others
today who salute not only the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking
member, for their leadership, but also the subcommittee chairman, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the ranking member, the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for great leadership on this
bill.
For too many years when the people of northeast Wisconsin fueled
their cars, they watched the numbers on the pumps turn and they watched
their fair share of the gas taxes we all pay at the pump to travel to
Washington only to be rerouted to another State. Our State saw only 87
cents in transportation funding for every dollar paid at the pump. Now,
with the passage of BESTEA, this approach, Wisconsin will know fairness
and equity.
This transportation bill guarantees Wisconsin at least 95 cents on
the dollar, and we may even see much more than that. In total,
Wisconsin hopes to see a 60 percent increase in Federal transportation
dollars. More importantly, the next time the people of northeast
Wisconsin are at the gas pumps, they will know they are investing in
Wisconsin's future and the safety of our highways.
I am pleased to see this priority on safety. Safe roads save lives.
Under this bill, northeast Wisconsin will see $40 million to improve
Highway 41, bloody Highway 29 and Highway 10. It is an investment that
we can be proud of, and I join in the praise of the chairman and the
members of this committee that have brought this to the floor today.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
2400. By funding important transportation projects, H.R. 2400 paves the
way to economic growth. This bill is the right way to move our Nation
forward by providing safer roads for our citizens. It puts trust back
into the Highway Trust Fund. It helps restore fairness and equity to
donor States like my own State of Texas, whose citizens pay more in
gasoline taxes to Washington than they get back.
It is forward-thinking legislation that addresses our Nation's
evolving transportation and roadway safety needs as we advance in the
21st Century. Mr. Chairman, transportation is more than just planes,
trains and automobiles. It is also about people, progress and public
safety. Transportation is the only item that physically links our
Nation together, and the American public has accepted Federal user
taxes to pay the cost of keeping our Nation's highways and bridges
sound.
As a strong proponent of a balanced budget, I believe it is dishonest
to tax the American public for the express purpose of improving our
Nation's highways only to have the Federal Government redirect some of
the taxes in the Highway Trust Fund to pay for other spending. H.R.
2400 provides fairness by introducing much greater funding equity to
donor States and to the
[[Page H1902]]
Federal highway funding formula. Like under current law, my home State
of Texas receives only 76 cents back for every dollar in Federal fuel
taxes that are sent to Washington. This bill will give 90 cents back
for every dollar funded. I support H.R. 2400.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), a valuable member of this
committee.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, as the only Houston area member of the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I am pleased to
have played a role in moving the BESTEA out of committee and to this
floor. I applaud the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for the
fine work that the big four produced.
BESTEA sets funding formulas to determine percentages for States to
receive Federal Highway Trust Fund monies. Texas, for the past 6 years,
has received only 77 cents for every dollar we pay into the trust fund.
Our needs are too great to give our dollars to other States. This new
legislation will make a significant increase in Texas' share of highway
funds and bring us closer to equity.
For over two decades, Congress and the White House have used
unobligated funds in the four transportation trust funds to make the
Federal deficit look smaller. It is a sham that has kept billions of
dollars locked up in Treasury notes that should be in our economy
matching local and State transportation dollars continuing the process
of building this country. There are plenty of uses for any funds that
we can secure.
I also do not need to tell this House how important improving
infrastructure is to promoting economic growth. Over the last 6 years,
this Nation has dedicated $155 billion to its transportation
infrastructure. Compare that to the $2.1 trillion spent by Germany and
the $3.2 trillion spent by Japan over a decade to develop their
respective transportation networks.
Our national transportation economy in 1994 accounted for 10.8
percent of our gross domestic product, employing over 3.2 million
Americans, but at the same time congestion on our highways has risen to
such a level that traffic costs American businesses $40 billion a year.
Americans waste 1.6 million hours every day sitting in traffic. We
cannot allow our Nation's transportation infrastructure to erode any
further. Our highways and railways must be shored up to keep
transportation costs as low as possible for the sake of commerce. For
the sake of our economy, now is the proper time to act. If we allow the
situation to get worse, we will have to make a choice down the road to
expand or repair. I do not believe that is a choice we can make. Let us
pass H.R. 2400.
As the only Houston-area member of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, I am pleased to have played a role in moving
the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act, or
BESTEA, out of Committee and to this Floor. I applaud Chairman Shuster,
Ranking Member Oberstar, Chairman Petri and Congressman Rahall for the
fine work the ``Big Four'' produced.
BESTEA sets funding formulas to determine percentages for states to
receive federal highway trust fund monies. Texas, for the past six
years, has received only 77 cents for every dollar we pay into the
trust fund. Our needs are too great to give our dollars to other
states. This new legislation will make a significant increase in Texas'
share at highway funds and bring us closer to equity.
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has taken steps
to significantly improve donor states' rate-of-return by including the
$9.3 billion High Priority Projects category within the Minimum
Allocation program. While BESTEA currently includes a 90% rate-of-
return, I am of the hope that as the process continues, donor states
will see a 95% rate-of-return on 100% of the funds distributed to the
states.
For over two decades Congress and the White House have used
unobligated funds in the four transportation trust funds to make the
federal deficit look smaller. It is a sham that has kept billions of
dollars locked up in Treasury notes that should be in our economy,
matching local and state transportation dollars, continuing the process
of building this country. There are plenty of uses for any funds we can
secure. I also don't need to tell this House how important improving
infrastructure is to promoting economic growth.
Over the last six years, this nation dedicated $155 billion to
restoring its transportation infrastructure. Compare that to the $2.1
trillion spent by Germany and $3.2 trillion spent by Japan over a
decade to develop their respective transportation networks. Our
national transportation economy in 1994 accounted for 10.8 percent of
our Gross Domestic Product, employing over 3.2 million Americans. But
at the same time, congestion on our highways has risen to such a level
that traffic costs American businesses $40 billion each year. Americans
waste 1.6 million hours every day sitting in traffic.
We cannot allow our nation's transportation infrastructure to erode
any further. Our highways and railways must be shored up to keep
transportation costs as low as possible for the sake of commerce. Our
products compete on a worldwide basis now, and products from countries
with strong and efficient infrastructure will cost less on the market
and allows producers to spend more on quality. That's the bottom line.
For the sake of our economy, now is the proper time to act. If we allow
the situation to get worse, we will have to make a choice down the road
to expand or repair the existing infrastructure. That's a choice I
don't believe this nation can afford to make.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a distinguished member of our committee.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to engage in a colloquy regarding
implementation of the unified motor carrier registration system with
the chairman and the ranking member.
In 1995, when the Congress enacted the ICC Termination Act, we
instructed the Secretary of Transportation to establish a single, on-
line Federal system for the registration of all interstate motor
carriers. The purpose of the system was to enhance the monitoring of
safety and insurance compliance.
We required the DOT to promulgate final rules by January 1, 1998, but
little has been done to accomplish that. The State program, it seems to
me, needlessly cost the industry about $90 million a year and ought to
be replaced by a single national system as this body intended in 1995.
I ask the chairman or the ranking member, is there any optimism to
resolve this?
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the bill managers in a colloquy
regarding implementation of a unified motor carrier registration
system.
Mr. Chairman, in 1995, when Congress enacted the Interstate Commerce
Commission Termination Act, we instructed the Secretary of
Transportation to establish a single, on-line federal system for the
registration of all interstate motor carriers. The purpose of the
system was to enhance the monitoring of safety and insurance
compliance. We required DOT to promulgate final rules by January, 1998.
That date has come and gone with little progress. This is largely
because, I am advised, the DOT is uncertain what to do with state-
operated insurance registration programs that duplicate the anticipated
federal program.
This House had given DOT clear authority to replace the state
programs, while providing the states with free access to the safety and
insurance data contained in the federal system. Unfortunately, the
House bill was amended in conference to require DOT to preserve the
revenues from these fees if DOT replaces the state programs. This
change greatly complicated the development of a simplified, uniform
federal program.
The state programs needlessly cost the industry about $90 million
annually. They should be replaced with a single, national system as
this body intended in 1995.
We need to rectify this problem which has needlessly delayed
implementation of the uniform, on-line federal system to cover all
interstate motor carriers. (I would greatly prefer that we resolve this
issue in conference on this bill. If that proves not to be possible, we
must see that we resolve it in some other bill before we adjourn this
year.)
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBLE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman that I
agree with him. We do need corrective legislation. I want to assure him
that we will continue to work with him to bring this about.
The gentleman raises a valid point.
The House passed legislation in 1995 that was amended in conference.
DOT is prevented from establishing a universal and accessible
register of motor carriers for safety and insurance compliance.
We need corrective legislation, and we need it this year if possible.
[[Page H1903]]
We have been working with motor carriers and with the States to
resolve this. I want to assure the gentleman that we will continue to
work with the gentleman and the affected parties to address this issue
at the earliest possible date.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Later today, I will offer an amendment to this bill which will expand
the Access to Jobs Program. The Access to Jobs Program assists welfare
recipients in making the transition from welfare to work. The amendment
seeks to increase the current authorization from $42 million to $150
million. The additional $108 million authorized for this vital program
does not take money from any other projects, nor does it raid the
Highway Trust Fund. It is a simple authorization subject to the
appropriations process. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to
support the amendment which I will offer later today and to support
this bill.
I also take the opportunity to commend and congratulate the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) for their outstanding leadership in bringing this measure
before us today.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time. I thank the chairman and ranking member for the bipartisan nature
in which we have put forth this bill. I would like to say basically
every time you cross a bridge, ride a train, light rail, subway, ride
on a bus, commute to work, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, who do you
assume assures your safety? Well, Mr. Chairman, that is us. More
accurately, that is the government. And more accurately than that, that
is individuals on the House floor and the Senate side who take their
role very responsibly.
I want to give one example of a problem that would be fixed by this
bill, and it is Highway 113 in my district. That is a single-lane
highway, and in the last 20 years, over 70 people have been tragically
killed on this highway. This bill corrects that problem. I once again
commend the bipartisan nature with which this bill has come forth, the
ranking member and the chairman of the committee.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Brown), a valuable member of the committee.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate my strong
support for H.R. 2400 and thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for working
hard on the donor State issue, and making this day possible. As the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) said, this is money for transportation from
those who use transportation and pay for it in gasoline taxes. It is a
common-sense approach to funding infrastructure.
Much has been said about the high priority projects, and I just want
to say that these projects ensure safe travel for millions of Americans
and help stimulate the economy. As the chairman has said, sometimes
money going to States does not trickle down to all parts of the State.
Poor and rural communities are not always represented, and a high
priority project from a Member of Congress is the only way some of
these needy projects can be funded.
I also want to say that I work very closely with the local mayors,
city councils and commissioners and citizens when it comes to
determining necessary projects. It is a true partnership between all
levels of government. This is not pork, Mr. Chairman, it is bringing
the transportation infrastructure of this country up to a world class
level. Safety for all Americans and good for our economy.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Baldacci).
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, Maine is currently at a critical
crossroads. Projected public investment for Maine's highways and
bridges fall far short of the level of funding needed to maintain the
system in its current condition and address the significant backlog of
needs. In bridges alone, we are looking at work that is estimated to be
a shortfall of over $5 million. We are looking at the road system. We
are looking at shortages of $32.2 million. Maine is a very large rural
State.
The district I represent is the largest physical district east of the
Mississippi. We are trying to repair the existing road work and the
shortages that we have experienced through the last reauthorization
which have left some pot holes along the way.
This funding measure will go to significantly repairing the damaged
roads, bridges, ports and airports. I ask for Members' support. This
funding that we were under, the Federal levels have not been increased
and the money that would be available under this program in these
alternatives will certainly go to enhancing Maine's balanced
transportation network. I encourage all of the Members to support this
measure and to be able to move forward on reauthorization in a timely
fashion.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
(Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2400 and
the manager's amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster).
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2400 and the manager's
amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, Mr. Shuster. As Co-
chairman of the Congressional Native American Caucus, I want to speak
briefly on the condition of roads in Indian country and on two
amendments that Mr. Shuster has included in the manager's amendment.
There are more than 50,000 miles of roads that serve hundreds of
Indian reservations throughout the United States. Indian reservation
roads make up 2.63% of all existing roads eligible for ISTEA funding.
However, tribes receive less than 1% of ISTEA funding for these roads.
If Indian country were to receive its full pro-rata share of the
billions included in this bill, Indian reservations would receive $4.7
billion over six years, or $793 million per year. Mr. Chairman, when
you compare this amount with the recommended funding level for Indian
roads, $212 million per year in H.R. 2400 and $250 million per year in
S. 1173, the recommended amount hardly seems adequate.
The condition of roads in Indian country endangers the health and
safety of those living on Indian reservations and inhibits economic
development. In inclement weather, over 30,000 miles of roads serving
Indian reservations are impassable. Things that most of us take for
granted like access to emergency services, or availability of heating
fuel and groceries, are not available on many reservations for several
months of the year. No business is going to locate on an Indian
reservation that cannot offer a basic transportation infrastructure.
The condition of bridges on Indian reservations is even more dire. A
recent survey by the Bureau of Indian Affairs counted 4,000 of these
bridges and found 190 to be deficient to the point of needing replacing
or undergo major repairs. The estimated cost to replace or repair
bridges are more than $40 million. Under H.R. 2400 and S. 1173, the
requested amount for the reservation bridge program is $9 million.
While I support funding for the bridge program, this amount still falls
short of addressing the need in Indian country.
Two amendments that Mr. Shuster includes in the manager's amendments
will encourage tribes to be more self-sufficient. These amendments
would allow certain tribal governments to receive transportation funds
and directly administer them. They would also require that the
Secretary allocate funds to tribes according to a negotiated rulemaking
process.
While I agree with the idea of the current language in the manager's
amendment, I disagree with the recommended process that will be used to
accomplish these goals. It is my hope that when this bill goes to
Conference, the conferees will agree that tribal governments should
manage their funds according to the authority of Public Law 93-638, the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975.
Each year, under P.L. 93-638, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the
Indian Health Service directly transfers hundreds of millions of
dollars to tribal governments so they can administer governmental
services and construction projects. P.L. 93-638 provides for
streamlined administrative efficiencies while preserving program and
financial accountability.
[[Page H1904]]
In closing, I strongly urge the House conferees to support the
recommended amount in S. 1173 that provides $250 million per year for
the Indian Reservation Roads program, and to allow tribes to receive
funds and directly administer them under P.L. 93-638.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member. I
rise today in support of H.R. 2400.
Think about this. In the next 5 years in central Orange County, that
is Anaheim, Gardon Grove and Santa Ana, we will be spending over $5
billion in new construction and modernization. That is the private
sector and that is the public sector; the public sector in our
infrastructure needs for all of this new construction and modernization
going on.
{time} 1615
It is the rising economy of Orange County. It requires local dollars,
State dollars and, yes, the dollars that we from Orange County send
here to be returned back to help our crumbling infrastructure. That is
why I am proud to say that I am part of this responsible bipartisan
initiative that was written with the support of diverse transportation
communities from business to labor, contractors to environmentalists,
from engineers to safety advocates and to cyclists.
These groups see that America is growing and prospering, but our
transportation infrastructure is lagging behind. And this bill picks up
the pace and our highways. I believe that this bill will improve
America, will improve our futures. The projects included are important
and very cost-effective, in particular in Orange County.
Our Nation's networks of road and transit systems are the arteries
that keep the economic heart of our country beating. Without this blood
supply, our country's economic body would suffer an irreversible
financial heart attack. Please join me in supporting this important
piece of legislation.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair, how much time
remains on our side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 16\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has 5
minutes remaining.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to congratulate the Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster); and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the
Ranking Member; and others for the very fine work they have done on
this important bill.
Mr. Chairman, the truth of the matter is that the infrastructure of
the United States of America is rotting. It is falling apart right
under us. And our roads, our bridges, our mass transportation, which is
our rail system, our rural bus system, our bicycle paths, are in major
need of repair; and it is high time that we paid attention to those
needs.
In the State of Vermont, we have a major infrastructure problem which
has been made worse in recent years by flooding, flooding which is
occurring today in the State of Vermont, further damaging our
infrastructure. All over Vermont bridges are in serious need of repair,
and this bill begins to address that problem.
Sixteen million from this legislation is going to the Missisquoi Bay
Bridge in Franklin County, Vermont. This bridge in the northern part of
our State serves as a vital transportation link for New York, Canadian,
and other New England traffic and would have been virtually impossible
to rebuild without help from the Federal Government.
What we now have is a deteriorating two-lane bridge, which, in light
of its high level of truck traffic, poses a significant hazard to the
traveling public and is a serious deterrent to interstate and
international commerce.
The State of Vermont's Agency of Transportation regarded this project
as the State's highest transportation priority, and this $16 million
will be a significant step forward in helping to rebuild that bridge.
Mr. Chairman, we hear about budget busting. In my view, tax breaks
for the wealthy are budget busting, corporate welfare is budget
busting, spending money that the military does not need is budget
busting. But rebuilding the infrastructure of this country and putting
our workers to work at decent-paying jobs is doing exactly the right
thing. It is improving the economic well-being of this country, and it
is long overdue. I congratulate our friends for the work that they have
done.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
(Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the Chairman for
his hard work. It is truly good work, a good product.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking
Member Oberstar for their dedication to bringing H.R. 2400, the
Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act, to the House
Floor. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has taken
positive steps to significantly improve donor states' rate-of-return.
Indiana is and has been a donor state. For years now, Indiana has
received only 77 cents for every $1 generated in federal gas tax
revenues in Indiana. Now that the National Highway System has been
completed, the time has arrived for Congress to bring fairness and
equity back into transportation funding and spending.
BESTEA includes a 90% rate-of-return. The Senate-passed version
contains a 91% rate-of-return. As the process continues, donor states
continue to seek a 95% rate-of-return.
Both versions have made great strides to bringing fairness and equity
to the funding. It would not only be unfair, but also an injustice for
the Conference Committee to not support the great strides that both
Chambers have made. I encourage Mr. Shuster and Mr. Oberstar to
continue the fine work they have begun with this bill as it moves to
conference.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
(Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy
with the Chairman of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss one of
ISTEA's most vital safety initiatives, the rail-crossing safety
program.
Last year, I testified before the Subcommittee on Surface
Transportation in support of legislation which I have introduced to
change the formula for ISTEA's rail-crossing safety program which
allocates funds to States based on a number of rail-crossing accidents
and fatalities.
Although BESTEA does not change the formula by which these funds are
distributed, I do want to commend my colleague for increasing by 41
percent funds allocated to the highway rail-crossing safety program in
BESTEA. As this bill moves to conference, I ask my colleague to ensure
that that priority funding be maintained.
Several hundred people are killed, and thousands more injured, every
year in the United States as a result of vehicle-train collisions at
highway-rail grade crossings. Just last week, a resident of Lake
Station, Indiana died when a train struck his car at a rail crossing
without gates, marked only by stop signs.
Although BESTEA does not change the formula by which these funds are
distributed, I do want to commend you for increasing, by 41%, the funds
allocated to the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Program in BESTEA.
As this bill moves to conference, I ask you to ensure that this
priority funding is maintained.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would say
that the gentleman has accurately pointed out the importance of this
provision, and he certainly has my assurance that we will do everything
we can to defend this provision, as we will with every House provision
as we go to conference.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's concern.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, Indiana is known as the crossroad of America. It is
nicknamed the crossroad of America not
[[Page H1905]]
only because it connects the people to their communities, but because
it is in central America and it connects the east to the west. This
bill is an investment in Indiana's connection to its people, it is an
investment to its communities, and it is an investment to the rest of
America.
This bill is important because it is about public safety, it is about
an investment in our economy, it is about our security. These are very,
very important measures that we consider today.
People in La Porte and Michigan City and Rolling Prairie, Indiana,
tell me that roads are the single most important issue to many of them;
and we must spend money to repair our roads before we spend more and
more and more money to repair our cars and our automobiles. This is a
prudent investment.
Now, I would say, as complimentary as I am to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), they have been fair and judicious, I would encourage them to
continue to be fair and judicious in conference; and as we look for
offsets in conference, I strongly encourage them not to go into public
education.
As shootings go up in our public schools and test scores come down,
it is cutting our nose off to spite our face, it is hurting our
businesses if we take money out of public education for our children.
Secondly, I want to commend the Chairmen for their addressing the
donor State issue for Indiana. Indiana will get close to a billion
extra dollars under the 6-year provisions of this bill because of the
way the Chairmen have treated donor-state issues. I hope and pray that
they continue to hold to those areas and those concerns in conference
with respect to Indiana.
Finally, there is some criticism about the expenditure. China will
spend $1 trillion on public investment over a 3-year period. The United
States will spend one-third of that over a 6-year period. We need to
invest in public safety.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to inform the
body that, this being April 1, somebody has sent out a bogus press
release from my office saying that I oppose high-priority congressional
projects. I just want to make sure that everybody understands this is
in the good spirit of April Fool's Day, and it is not accurate.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that is
absolutely astonishing. This is April Fool's Day, but this is not the
time for that sort of thing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, the most congested and the most dangerous
section of Interstate 35 anywhere between Canada and Mexico is in my
hometown of Austin, Texas. Correcting the gridlock on Interstate 35 is
vital not only for the Central Texas economy but for everyone in this
Nation that relies on this vital transportation artery. I commend the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Petri), and all of the Members that have worked so hard to produce
this bill.
We have followed their example with a broad regional bipartisan
coalition to build a bypass to I-35 in Texas known as State Highway
130. Our work on SH-130 demonstrates the wisdom of the Chairman's
support of demonstration projects. These high-priority projects like
SH-130 are a way of assuring that our priorities are addressed by both
State and Federal transportation bureaucracies.
These bureaucracies are not the know-all and the be-all on planning
transportation. Sometimes the bureaucratic number-crunchers forget that
their actions can crunch people and can crunch neighborhoods as well as
numbers.
In the case of SH-130, we have required in this bill a specific route
endorsed unanimously by City Council members and commissioners as well
as some State legislators. We have also specified that that money must
be expended solely for the construction of that portion of SH-130
within Travis County and south of U.S. 290.
From the outset, I have supported a bypass for traffic, not a bypass
of local community concerns by an unresponsive bureaucracy. Now is the
time for the Texas Department of Public Transportation to apply some of
the $10\1/2\ billion that it is receiving in this bill to build SH-130,
build it now, build it in the right way to the east of Decker Lake in
Travis County, Texas.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Boswell), a very distinguished member of our committee.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
I really appreciate, being a newcomer, and inquired about coming to
this committee. I knew a lot of important work was to take place there.
So I inquired about the Chairman, and I inquired about the Ranking
Member. I was informed and it has been proven out that they have worked
together and that the committee is open. So I come as a newcomer,
realizing that commerce has got to move across this country in order
for us to compete, to compete with the elements of the Pacific Rim and
European Union and we have got to do it.
My colleagues, I really appreciated it when they pointed out that
some of this increase is giving up the interest and other aspects that
they pointed out, not to repeat them. So this is a doable thing, and
this country will benefit from it.
I often wonder what it would be like--the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer) said it is the heartland, and we claim the heartland. So I will
just claim the belt buckle, if I can, for Iowa. But I can imagine the
embarrassment if commerce is moving back and forth across this country
and they got to Iowa and we had to put up a sign that said, ``Excuse
me. Slow down to 35 or 40 miles an hour because we cannot repair our
bridges and fill in the potholes and make those improvements.''
We cannot do that. We are not 50 separate countries; we are 50 United
States. So I think this is pointing that out, and it is going to help
our country as a whole. Some things we just got to do to keep up. And
we do not want to get behind. We are already behind, and we will never
catch up if we do not keep up.
So I am very pleased to be supporting this very important thing. It
is probably the most important thing we do in the entire 2 years we are
in this assembly. Thank you for your efforts.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, like a lot of my colleagues today, I would
like to thank both the Chairman and our Ranking Member and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for the fine work on
H.R. 2400. I believe it is good not only for our Nation but also for
the State of Texas that I represent and also for the district and the
community I represent of Houston.
BESTEA is the fairest and best bill for donor States such as Texas
because it guarantees that each State receives back at least 95 percent
of the amount it pays out in gasoline taxes. Transportation funds are
imperative for a State as large as Texas, and we need a transportation
funding bill that makes sure we receive adequate funds just to maintain
the safety on our roads and highways.
As a border State, Texas is impacted by large amounts of traffic
resulting from trade with Mexico. This high volume of traffic passes
through I-69, which runs through the middle of my district. We must
make sure that funds are included for trade corridors such as I-69
because NAFTA has so dramatically increased the traffic through Texas.
Also, ISTEA originally was based on intermodal. With the Port of
Houston and I-69, it makes that intermodal transportation work.
In addition, I support BESTEA because it recognizes the importance of
demonstration projects to solve local transportation problems.
For 5 years, as a Member of Congress, I have worked with the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on a grade separation
project; and I am glad to see it is in this bill. This project protects
the lives of not only the residents and people who work in the
Manchester community in East Houston but, again, it is the definitive
reason we need demonstration projects on intermodal
[[Page H1906]]
transportation, a grade separation over nine tracks that will be great
for the business community but also for the residents there. Funding
these demonstration projects such as this is long overdue and must be
protected in BESTEA authorization.
{time} 1630
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman and the
Ranking Member for his leadership, and I thank the committee as well. I
rise to support H.R. 2400.
Let me point out that, in the 18th congressional an urban district,
this legislation will bring our communities together with the funding
of hike and bike trails, many constituents in my district have long
asked for such transportation tools.
It is also very important to note that we will be rebuilding our
Nation's infrastructure, the highways, and roads so badly needed. But
what is very important to the city of Houston, is the understanding
that H.R. 2400 authorizes not only a Houston regional bus plan for
final design and construction, and the Houston Advanced Transit program
for planning activities, and preliminary engineering.
This allows Houston to look into the options of bus and/or rail. The
City of Houston is the fourth largest city in the Nation, with over 1.4
million residents and, as such, must be able to explore all of the
transportation options to its residents.
The City experiences frequent traffic congestion. Currently, Houston
receives a certain amount for its Better Bus Program and has received
such funds for approximately 6 years. Houston does not at this time
receive any funds for a rail system.
My Democratic colleagues in the Houston area support this option. I
hope the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) will work with me to make
sure that this option comes to the City of Houston. The City of Houston
is preparing and has announced a Transportation 2000 study that will
include consideration and review of options such as commuter rail and
other forms of urban rail systems for Houston.
I am delighted that this bill in its wisdom will allow the City of
Houston to consider the options of bus and/or rail. I believe rail is
needed in our community. In fact several transportation options are
needed for our city, which is the fourth largest city in the Nation.
And or well, it is needed for inner city Houston. This legislation will
support such options as rail to be pursued by Houston as the city may
desire.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2400 as a modernization
of America's highway and transportation systems for the 21st century.
This bill provides for developing the infrastructure that our economy
needs to continue its miraculous growth well into the next century.
Transportation is clearly a factor in the development of our economy
and will be an element for our continuing economic success in this
ever-changing new world order. The modernization and technological
advancement of our transportation systems that are contained in this
bill are essential to our nation. Mr. Shuster and Mr. Oberstar as well
as all of the members of the committee should be commended for their
excellent work.
Our large and complex transportation system unites us and connects
even the smallest town with the rest of the world. Transportation and
our highways touch every person in this country, it comprises 11
percent of our Gross Domestic Product and makes up one-fifth of the
typical American household budget.
However, there are some fundamental problems with how BESTEA will be
funded. The ground-breaking balanced budget agreement of last year gave
us the guidelines and caps necessary to keep our spending within our
means. Many of our vital social programs were asked to sacrifice their
monies in the name of fiscal restraint. Now we are asked to vote on a
bill that exceeds the budget caps by $26 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned as to which programs the Republicans will
cut in order to make way for the $26 billion we are asked to spend
today. It is imperative that these cuts will not be made by the
conference committee at the expense of the disadvantaged, our children
and those citizens who do not have the resources to have a lobbying
group pressuring that committee.
Another troubling aspect of this bill is the possible amendment to
end the Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise Program. This is a program that for over two decades has
been providing equal opportunities for women and minorities competing
for highway and transit contracts.
Since its inception, small businesses as well as women and minority-
owned construction firms are now participating in building our nation's
highways. Their participation has increased from 1.9 percent in 1978 to
14.8 percent in 1996. By reaching out to and fostering new business
relationships, this program has countered the effects of discrimination
and good old boy networks which had been road blocks for many years.
These facts were recognized by the Senate as it voted to preserve
this 15-year-old program as we should also. We all wish that we lived
in a world that was free from discrimination, but we don't. But, this
program is not about quotas or set-asides as some members want to
characterize it. The statute only relies on flexible goals.
The program also complies completely within the ``strict scrutiny''
standard of the Supreme Court decision in Adarand. The Department of
Transportation has recently published proposed rule changes in response
to that standard. There is clearly a compelling governmental interest
in redressing past discrimination in DOT-assisted contracting.
Minority-owned construction firms represent about 9 percent of all such
firms and receive only about 5 percent of construction receipts. The 10
percent national goal is constitutional, good policy and still
necessary. BESTEA with it is unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I am a part of a state delegation that will be getting
back less than they will be paying in our taxes. Texas will be getting
more than $1.7 billion in formula distributions and over $216 million
in demonstration projects with this bill. However, Texans will be
getting back only about 90 cents on the dollar, but I understand the
needs of the other states. For my own part, Houston will benefit from a
new ``Hike and Bike'' path, new buses and rebuilt roads. I am also
advocating a study on the use of light rail for Houston. As the fourth
largest city in the country, it is appropriate that we consider light
rail as a substitute for using our streets and highways.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill with these exceptions. We need to
continue the effective and efficient transportation system that this
bill provides for the betterment of all Americans.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time
remains on both sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster)
has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 3\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this brings us to the end of a very long
and productive general debate period when we have heard fulsome praise
for this legislation from all sectors of this country, all spectrums of
our society, from urban and suburban and exurban and rural America,
from coastal and border America, from all spectrums, all aspects of the
economic slices of our country.
It has been very encouraging to see the enormous outpouring of
support from Members across the body for a truly visionary piece of
legislation. It does, indeed, do all these things that all of our
colleagues have praised the legislation for.
I have a few things of my own that are very special to me. We
continue the Rails to Trails Program, continue the Bicycling and
Pedestrian Walkways Program that has made it possible for more than 10
million Americans to buy bicycles, become bicyclists.
I am an avid cyclist myself. I have pedaled over 2,100 miles on the
open road last year. I want to see more people using bike to commute
from home to work, as is done in Chicago.
We preserve and continue the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program which, in Chicago, has enabled that city with wise
use and wise investment of those dollars to improve its Air Quality
Index over 15 percent in the 6 years of ISTEA.
We continue the Scenic America Program with the Scenic Byways Program
that was initiated in ISTEA, again stimulating the tourism travel
sector of our economy, which is nearly a $400 billion sector of our
economy, one that generates a $20 billion surplus balance of payments
for this country, inbound tourism expenditures here over what Americans
spend traveling abroad.
[[Page H1907]]
We will initiate in this legislation when it is finally enacted a
very important part of our Welfare to Work Program that was passed in
the last Congress. It is very hard to get people to jobs if they do not
have the means to get there.
My middle daughter, Annie, works in Jubilee Jobs in the Adams Morgan
area of Washington, D.C., trying to place people from the homeless
shelters, those who have fallen from the welfare net in the Hispanic
and black community of Northeast/Northwest Washington. The biggest
single problem she faces with her clients is getting them to and from
their job.
This innovative experimental program, pilot program, will help cities
across this country do there what Chicago has done in its city with a
program of welfare to work, provide means of transportation for those
who need to get to the places where the jobs are located.
All in all, all told, this is the bill that the visionaries of 1956
could not have foreseen. This is a bill that the Members of this
Congress who stand on their shoulders, who look into the future have
said to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), this bill will
be an everlasting legacy of his service in this Congress. I hope he
will serve many more years. But whatever those years, this will be his
greatest achievement and the greatest legacy that we could leave to
future generations.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar)
has expired.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank my good friend, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and all our colleagues on both sides of the
aisle for making this a truly bipartisan team effort for the good of
America.
In closing, I want to particularly recognize our staff, which has
done such an outstanding job, particularly the Subcommittee on Surface
Transportation and Committee on Budget staff, and most of all Jack
Schenendorf, the Chief of Staff of our Committee on Transportation, the
largest committee in the Congress, indeed the largest committee in the
history of the United States with 75 members.
Jack Schenendorf is truly a leader of extraordinary capability.
Without his dedication and perseverance, intelligence and experience,
the staff would not have been able to accomplish everything they did.
That staff and those who have contributed so much include Roger
Nober, Debbie Gebhardt, Chris Bertram, Susan Lent, Adam Tsao, Darrell
Wilson, Bill Hughes, Linda Scott, Patricia Law, and Mary Beth Will.
Certainly, the Members on the other side of the aisle equally stand
shoulder to shoulder with me to recognize the staff on both sides,
because, indeed, this is a joint staff working together for the
betterment of our country.
Let me close by focusing on the two fundamental principles that we
started out with in this debate today, the first fundamental principle
being that this legislation puts the trust back in the Transportation
Trust Fund. It is honest budgeting.
It says that the 18.4 cents gasoline tax that the Americans pay in
the related transportation taxes, the revenue, and only that revenue,
will be spent from the Trust Fund to rebuild America's infrastructure.
Indeed, there can be no deficit financing here. The money must be
there. It is the most fiscally responsible kind of Federal spending we
can have. We only spend the revenue that comes in. Indeed, as part of
our agreement, we have agreed to forgo the interest on the balance in
the Trust Fund, which means the national debt will be reduced by close
to $15 billion over the life of this bill.
Beyond that, we have agreed to turn back $9 billion in the
Transportation Trust Fund. So between the foregone interest and the $10
billion that we will turn back, it adds up to approximately $25
billion, a reduction in the national debt, real dollars, real reduction
in the national debt. That $25 billion approximates the increased
spending in this legislation.
The second fundamental principle is that we begin to meet the
transportation needs of America. Our highways are in poor condition.
There are 42,000 people killed on them every year, and 9,000 of those
being killed are kids. In fact, of those fatalities, about 12,000 to
13,000 are attributed to bad roads, which means we will be saving
lives. I am told, over the life of this bill, we will be able to reduce
fatalities by about 4,000 lives a year.
Beyond that, we provide an economic stimulus, increase productivity,
jobs, have tremendous support from all sectors of the country. The 50
governors, the cities, the counties, the environmentalists, safety
leaders, labor, Chamber of Commerce, triple AAAs, this bill has
extraordinarily broad support. It is good for America. It puts honesty
in budgeting. We spend only the revenue that comes into the bill.
For all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation that we are bringing to the floor, because we will rebuild
America as we move into the 21st Century.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairmen Shuster
and Petri as well as Ranking Democratic Members Oberstar and Rahall for
their cooperation in bringing a Research Title to the floor which
incorporates most of the significant research and development
provisions from H.R. 860 as reported by the House Committee on Science.
I believe our cooperative efforts of the past have contributed
significantly to strengthening the Department of Transportation's
surface transportation research and development portfolio, and I am
equally convinced that our efforts during 1997 and 1998 will take these
research programs to the next level.
I also appreciate the Transportation Committee's willingness to keep
the dialog going in the areas in which we could not reach final
agreement and their willingness to consider our few remaining concerns
in the context of the upcoming conference with the Senate. I am
convinced that this approach will lead to a unified House position in
these negotiations and a stronger final product for the President to
sign.
At this point, I would like to point out a number of the provisions
of H.R. 860 which can be found in the Manager's Amendment. The
provisions were crafted in a cooperative and bipartisan fashion by
members of the Science Committee. First, the amendment includes H.R.
860's ``Sense of Congress'' that the Department of Transportation
should place a high priority on addressing the Year 2000 problem in all
of its computer and information systems. The amendment includes
provisions from H.R. 860 to expand the Department's Research and
Technology program to include: testing and evaluation of bridge,
concrete and pavement structures; environmental research; human factors
research; research on the use of recycled materials such as paper and
plastic fiber reinforcement systems; knowledge of implementing life-
cycle cost assessment; and standardized estimates of useful life for
advanced materials.
Provisions from H.R. 860 are included in the amendment to commission
a study by the National Academy of Sciences regarding the need for a
new Strategic Highway Research Program or similar effort and to require
the Department to establish a strategic planning process for surface
transportation R&D. The Amendment further requires the plan to be
consistent with the provisions of the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993. A surface Transportation-Environment Cooperative
Research Program designed to provide State and local transportation
officials with the tools and knowledge necessary to better understand
the impacts of transportation decisions is also included in the
amendment. Finally, the amendment includes small changes to the
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) provisions of the bill to
expand the goals of the program and to extend the research activities
of the program to include human factors research on the science of the
driving process; the effects of cold climates on ITS; and magnetics.
Again, I wish to thank my colleagues on the Transportation Committee
for their cooperation and I look forward to working with them in
Conference. The remainder of my statement reflects the views of the
Committee on Science on the legislation.
The Committee on Science, for almost twenty years, has worked closely
with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to craft
transportation research and development authorizing legislation. Our
tradition, rather than to enact separate transportation research and
development legislation, has been to write our own legislation and then
to work out our differences with the other Committee prior to House
floor consideration of transportation measures. In 1991, Congressman
Norman Mineta, who was both a member of our Committee and Chairman of
the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, offered our compromise
legislation during the Transportation Committee markup. This year our
Committees agreed that the Managers Amendment on the House Floor would
be the appropriate time to merge our work product, H.R. 860--
[[Page H1908]]
the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 1997 as
reported by the Committee on Science, with the bill HR 2400--the
Building Efficient Surface Transportation Equity Act of 1998 which is
before us today.
The Science Committee is pleased the Manager's Amendment to H.R. 2400
includes a provision from H.R. 860 expressing the sense of Congress
that the Department of Transportation should give high priority to
correcting the Year 2000 problem in all of its computer systems to
ensure effective operation in the Year 2000 and beyond. The Department
needs to develop a plan and a budget to correct the problem for its
mission-critical programs. Currently, the Department has only fixed 23
percent of its mission critical systems. The Department also needs to
begin consideration of contingency plans, in the event that certain
systems are unable to be corrected in time. The Committee believes
Congress should continue to take a leadership role in raising awareness
about the issue with both government and the private sector. The
potential impact on the Department's programs, if the Year 2000 problem
is not corrected in an effective and timely manner, is substantial and
potentially serious. It is imperative that such corrective action be
taken to avert disruption to critical programs.
The Committee is pleased the Amendment includes important provisions
from H.R. 860 which seeks to improve the performance of the federal
investment in surface transportation research by requiring the
Secretary to establish a performance-based strategic planning process
consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. The
strategic planning process will address deficiencies in the current
program, as identified by the General Accounting Office, Transportation
Research Board, and other transportation research and development
stakeholders, by setting a strategic direction, defining national
priorities, coordinating federal efforts and evaluating the impact of
the federal investment in surface transportation R&D. As envisioned by
the Results Act, a strategic plan will be developed and include review
and comment from industry, the National Research Council and other
advisory boards. The plan will be submitted to Congress within one year
after enactment and updated as required by the Results Act.
H.R. 2400, as amended by the Manager's Amendment, includes language
to reauthorize the Department's Highway Research and Technology (R&T)
Program which is very similar to the provisions of H.R. 860. There is
wide agreement on the need to allow the Department to engage in
research, development and technology transfer activities designed to
improve the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of the surface
transportation system. The amendment includes provisions from H.R. 860
requiring the Department to include in the advanced research program:
diagnostics for the evaluation of the condition of bridge and pavement
structures to enable the assessment of risks of failure, including from
seismic activity, vibration and weather; environmental research which
may include among other things development of environmentally safe
coatings for surface transportation infrastructure; and human factors
research including the prediction of the response of current and future
travelers to new technologies. In addition, the Committee believes that
destructive testing simulating seismic activity, vibration and weather
on certain bridges and pavement structures that are in the process of
being replaced offers the potential to improve methods of structure
design, construction and rehabilitation.
The Amendment further requires the Department's Highway R&T Program
to include a program to strengthen and expand surface transportation
infrastructure research and development. The program is required to
include testing to improve the life of bridge structures, including
tests simulating seismic activity, vibration and weather; research on
the use of recycled materials, such as paper and plastic fiber
reinforcement systems; expansion of knowledge of implementing life
cycle cost assessment, including establishing the appropriate analysis
period and discount rates, learning how to value and properly consider
user costs, determining trade-off between reconstruction and
rehabilitation, and establishing methodologies for balancing higher
initial costs of new technologies and improved or advanced materials
against lower maintenance costs; and standardizing estimates of useful
life under various conditions for advanced materials of use in surface
transportation, developed in conjunction with the National Institute of
Standards and Technology and other appropriate organizations.
The Committee on Science was especially interested in utilizing the
R&T program to both save money and make sure that innovations
penetrated the marketplace. Similarly, the Committee notes that there
has been very little follow-on to the experiments to date in
alternatives to low-cost bidder contracting and feels the more that can
be done to increase the knowledge base associated with contracting
alternatives, the easier it will be to justify innovations in highway
construction. In addition, the Committee supports research on the use
of recycled materials such as paper and plastic fiber reinforcement
systems. Research in this area indicates that technically equivalent
recycled plastics are potentially much cheaper than the expensive
welded fabric, which traditionally has been added to standard concrete
for crack control.
The Science Committee is pleased the Amendment includes a provision
from H.R. 860 to commission a study to be conducted by the National
Academy of Sciences regarding the need for a new Strategic Highway
Research Program (SHRP) or similar effort. The original SHRP program
has yielded over 100 pavement products that combines to save our nation
over $690 million per year in highway operations and maintenance costs.
The legislation directs the Secretary to work with the transportation
community to study and specify the goals, purposes, needs, agenda and
structure for a new SHRP program or similar effort. The study will help
to ensure that the Department continues its strong partnership role
with States, the Transportation Research Board and industry to move
technology and innovation into common practice.
Under the State Research Program, the amendment includes a provision
from H.R. 860 asking each state to report annually to the Secretary on
the level of its funding for research and development provided through
this program. A state may provide such information as part of existing
reports that the state provides to the Secretary. This provision is not
intended to require any additional reporting from the States. Its
purpose is simply to provide a more accurate accounting of each state's
surface transportation research and development activities. Currently,
it is difficult to track research or to separate it from other
permitted uses of funding under this section.
The Science Committee concurs with H.R. 2400's provisions to
reauthorize the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP). LTAP
improves access to surface transportation technology and serves as the
primary channel through which innovative transportation technology and
training are delivered to both urban and rural communities. The
Manager's Amendment includes language from H.R. 860 to add concrete to
the road and transportation areas of which the LTAP is to expand the
knowledge and expertise of rural and local transportation agencies.
Concrete is an area where substantial knowledge in the research
community has not adequately filtered down to the working level and
where universities who train the engineers and other experts involved
in highway construction have a major contribution to make in solving
the technology transfer problem. For instance, the Committee would like
to see the development of partnerships among state Departments of
Transportation, industry, and associations to address educational and
training needs, to provide testing services and cooperative applied
research, to demonstrate new technologies and product applications, and
to link architects, engineers, and contractors to speed adoption of
industry advancements for commercial benefit to the surface
transportation industry, including the area of concrete management.
Other provisions from H.R. 860 have also been included in the
amendment to expand LTAP's modern highway technology to include
implementing life-cycle costs assessment and standardized assessments
of useful life under various conditions for advanced materials. The
Committee understands that one of the impediments to rapid deployment
of advanced materials in local high construction projects is
the difficulty of estimating the contributions these materials can make
to reducing life cycle costs of roads, bridges, and other highway
structures. The Committee feels a research program geared to
understanding the likely useful life of these materials under a variety
of conditions will decrease uncertainties associated with innovation
and increase the comfort level of local officials as well as their
willingness to buy new products.
The Committee is pleased H.R. 2400 includes provisions from H.R. 860
reauthorizing both The Dwight David Eisenhower Transportation
Fellowship Program and the National Highway Institute. The Eisenhower
Fellowship Program continues to attract qualified students to the field
of transportation research to assist in developing the professional
workforce necessary to face future transportation challenges. The
National Highway Institute (NHI) continues to provide education and
training to Federal, State and local transportation agencies in
proactive effort to apply state of the art transportation technologies
emanating from the Department's R&D programs. The NHI is the leading
resource within the Department for providing high quality comprehensive
education and training programs tailored to meet the needs of
transportation professionals at all levels of the Federal, State and
local government, as well as industry.
[[Page H1909]]
H.R. 2400's National Technology Deployment Initiative is very similar
to H.R. 860's Technology Partnerships Program in that it will encourage
new transportation technology partnerships between the Department and
State, local, private, academic, and other entities. The Committee
believes it is essential that the Department continue its strong
partnership role with government and the private sector to move
technology and innovation into common practice. In selecting projects
under this program, the Committee supports giving preference to
projects that leverage federal funds with other significant public or
private resources.
The University Transportation Centers (UTC) Program is one of the few
areas where the Science Committee and the Transportation Committee
failed to reach complete agreement on the provisions of the
legislation. The Committee recognizes the UTC Program has been shown to
be an effective means of advancing transportation technology and
expertise and believes that one of the program's strengths is directly
related to the fact that most UTCs had to compete to participate,
stimulating a high degree of continuous improvement raising the quality
of the entire program. H.R. 860 requires participation in the UTC
program on a peer-reviewed, competitive basis. H.R. 2400 allows all
participants that received grants during Fiscal Year 1997 automatically
to be awarded participation in the UTC program for Fiscal Years 1998
and 1999. However, the Science Committee is pleased that, beginning in
Fiscal Year 2000, participation in the UTC program will be based on a
competitive process for most of the institutions participating in the
program.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure did not decide to
include specific legislative authority for awarding grants to
researchers at primarily undergraduate institutions which involve
undergraduate students in their transportation research. These schools
are a major source of professional capacity for the surface
transportation industry and we feel that when these engineers are
acquainted with the purposes and practice of research during their
university training that they will be more sensitive to innovative
ideas throughout their careers. We note that it is within the power of
the Department of Transportation to increase its efforts to promote
undergraduate research and we urge the Department to do so.
The Science Committee is pleased that the Manager's Amendment
includes the Surface Transportation-Environment Cooperative Research
Program (STECRP). This program was included to address the need for
information which will assist transportation planners at the Federal,
State, and local level in their efforts to design an intermodal
transportation system that meets the needs of our citizens for a safe,
clean environment and for access to economic goods and services.
Transportation projects must meet a widerange of criteria under a
host of laws at the Federal, State, and local levels. Our state and
local transportation planners are charged with the responsibility to
assess the environmental and community impacts of proposed
transportation projects. These assessments require more than
engineering specifications and new technologies. They require
information about the interrelationships between factors such as
demographic change, land-use planning, and transportation system design
that influence the demand for transportation. By creating the STECRP,
the Committee ensures there will be a program in place to gather and
disseminate this information to the individuals charged with the
responsibility for making these decisions.
The Committee recognizes there is a perception by low-income and
minority communities that they are disproportionately impacted by some
transportation projects and that they derive fewer benefits from
transportation expenditures. Federal and state laws currently require
the social and economic impacts of transportation projects be assessed.
The Committee feels these debates can best be resolved by doing
rigorous studies designed to examine the nature of the relationship
between transportation investments and community development. Research
in this area, which is sometimes referred to as environmental justice,
is eligible for funding under the STECRP.
The Committee recognizes that many communities have utilized funds
available under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program to
improve or construct pedestrian and bicycle trails. We expect that some
research will be allocated to collecting information about the use of
these trails that can be used to assess their effectiveness in
addressing air quality and congestion problems, and to identify factors
which can improve overall trail design to ensure maximum benefits are
obtained through their use.
The Committee recognizes that there is a need to conduct research and
development on energy use and air quality as it relates to surface
transportation efficiency. Research in this area may include new and
innovative fuel technologies, such as biodiesel fuel, that enables
recycled and renewable resources to be used as fuel. Biodiesel fuel, a
renewable fuel product made using virgin soybean oil, may potentially
help the U.S. achieve cleaner air and greater energy independence.
The Committee expects the advisory board to build upon the
preliminary work done by the participants in the two conferences held
to identify critical transportation environmental research needs in
1991 and 1996 published in Transportation Research Board Circulars 389
and 469 in developing their recommendations. These documents identify
the type of research needs this program is intended to fulfill.
The Intelligent Transportation Systems program is an area where the
Committee on Science and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure did not have time before floor consideration to work out
all of our differences. Therefore, the Committee on Science was willing
to yield to the suggested text of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee for purposes of floor consideration on the assurance that the
provisions of H.R. 860 would be given due consideration as our
Committees jointly conference with the Senate and work on a final
version of the ITS section of this legislation.
The Committee's concerns regarding ITS are straight-forward. There
are already examples of orphan ITS systems across the country paid for
at taxpayer expense using protocols which are incompatible with other
systems and with standards which were developed after the ITS system
was deployed. There are also metropolitan areas where some of the ITS
systems already installed are not compatible with others. We are
concerned that this is a growing problem. The Administration's proposal
for ITS takes a sharp swing towards demonstrations and implementation
of ITS systems and away from research and standardization. This
approach places the cart before the horse. Further haste in deployment
will waste even more tax dollars. We would rather defer the deployment
of systems a little while longer than ask taxpayers to pay for both
initial deployment and the subsequent retrofit of these systems to
permit interoperability with future systems built subsequently in
conformance with national standards.
The ITS principles of the final bill should include:
The development and promulgation of the standards and protocols
needed for a national ITS architecture and for compatibility of all ITS
systems subsequently deployed must be made the number one priority in
this program if we are to avoid widespread waste. Furthermore, the
program must comply with the recently revised OMB Circular A-119 which
requires all Federal agencies to make use of private sector standards
developed through a voluntary consensus process whenever possible.
Deployments of ITS systems funded under this Act should be
conditioned on compatibility with ITS final and provisional standards.
The ITS program has instituted a model standards development program
that is well underway. For the initial generations of ITS systems, it
is clear which standards are needed and the Department has provided
substantial assistance to standards development organizations to make
sure they are developed on a priority basis. Therefore, the Committee
feels that conditioning further deployments of ITS systems on their use
of final and provisional standards proposed by standard development
organization's subcommittees will accelerate the development process
even further by making it in all parties' interest to have standards in
place at the earliest possible date. If standards are not in place,
funds should be spent on operational tests which will provide
information needed to finalize the standards rather than on deployments
which may later be incompatible with the standard.
We feel that, given the limited funds available and the importance of
national deployment of ITS, that all operational tests and deployments
carried out in compliance with this Act must be designed and carried
out with subsequent purchasers of similar systems in mind. The
government needs to use them as test beds. Operational tests need to be
designed for the collection of data and the preparation of reports to
permit objective evaluation of the success of the tests and the
derivation of cost-benefit information and life-cycle costs that will
be useful to other contemplating the purchase of similar systems.
Recipients of funds for either operational tests or deployments should
be asked to help increase the understanding of what skills workers must
possess to successfully operate ITS systems; of what similarly situated
governments should consider before commitment to purchasing an ITS
system including legal, technological, and institutional barriers to
deployment; and of how to improve procurement of these systems.
We also feel that a portion of ITS funding should look to future ITS
systems. At least 15 percent of funding available for ITS systems
should be spent on basic research or long-term research. The Committee
is especially concerned that adequate emphasis be placed
[[Page H1910]]
on human factors research, including research into the science of the
driving process, to improve the operational efficiency and safety of
intelligent transportation systems; research conducted on
environmental, weather, and natural conditions that impact intelligent
transportation systems, including effects of cold climates. We feel
that ITS advanced systems will be such a fundamental shift in the use
of motor vehicles that basic research to increase our understanding of
the driving process, is in order. We are concerned that the ITS needs
of cold climates, will be significantly different than needs in other
regions of the country and that the potential impact on ITS of natural
phenomena such as earthquakes needs to be understood better. We also
feel that magnetics will have major roles to play in advanced systems
where cars will travel at rapid rates of speed at close differences.
Additionally, although not specifically referenced in H.R. 2400, the
Committee supports research on new advanced ITS systems designed to
reduce congestion, enhance safety and improve cost effectiveness. The
Committee does not support reviving the Automated Highway Systems, but
endorses continuing advanced research on traffic technologies which may
include information technologies such as Active Response Geographical
Information Systems used to facilitate effective transportation system
decision-making; and advanced traffic management technologies,
including the use of fiber optic cable and video, to monitor and
control traffic control and volume.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, given all the stories in the
papers about ``pork'' in the transportation bill, I rise today to tell
you about a transportation project that I believe will benefit hundreds
of thousands of schoolchildren and adults alike in the great State of
Illinois and which I am proud to sponsor.
The Museum Campus Chicago, which is in my district, is made up of
three world-famous institutions: the Adler Planetarium and Astronomy
Museum, the Field Museum of Natural History, and the John G. Shedd
Aquarium. The Museum Campus has a plan to transport visitors to its
three institutions and others along the lake in Chicago on free
trolleys powered by ethanol. This is a worthy, environmentally
beneficial project that will be enjoyed by literally millions of
people. And I and others in the Illinois delegation believe it is
exactly the type of local project that merits Federal ``BESTEA'' start-
up funding in order to get it off the ground.
The Chicago Museum Campus was just created through the $92 million
relocation of Lake Shore Drive, a major thoroughfare running along Lake
Michigan in downtown Chicago. The Museum Campus, which is on Park
District land, opens officially this June. It totals 57 acres,
including 10 new acres of public parkland that allow a continuous link
between the three museums, which, Mr. Speaker, already draw nearly 4
million visitors a year. The Museum Campus will offer outdoor
collaborative programming and is expected to attract an additional 1
million visitors a year to the Chicago lakefront. It is expected to be
one of the country's most popular destinations.
Still, while the museums are excited about the rerouting of Lake
Shore Drive, they came to me because they have serious access problems
that could reduce visitorship. I am speaking of problems like the loss
of several hundred parking spaces due to the Lake Shore Drive
relocation, the long distances between the three institutions and to
area parking lots, competition for parking with Soldier Field patrons,
and inadequate links to local public transportation. All these
obstacles make visits by the elderly, by the handicapped and by
families with young children very difficult and frustrating.
It is for these reasons, that I and several of my colleagues in the
Chicago delegation--and our colleagues in the Senate--hope to secure
BESTEA funds for the Museum Campus Transportation Project, which would
largely eliminate the access problems while increasing public awareness
of ethanol as a fuel choice. The project has two components. The
first--free Museum Campus and Chicago Lakefront shuttle service--was
recommended in a recent Lakefront Transportation Study prepared for the
City of Chicago Department of Transportation. The Museum Campus took
the report's advice and launched a free trolley service last summer on
a pilot basis. The trolleys were very popular--they shuttled more than
300,,000 visitors, up to 6,000 people a day, between the museums and
parking lots! Besides being free and reducing people's stress levels,
the trolleys also reduced traffic congestion, and noise and air
pollution. I think there's no argument about the benefits of these
trolleys.
I am pleased to join with several of my colleagues to seek BESTEA
funds for the Museum Campus Transportation Project to establish a
permanent Museum Campus shuttle system using ethanol-powered trolleys
and to extend shuttle service along the lakefront to other cultural
destinations. Stops along the Lakefront Shuttle route would include the
Art Institute, the Museum of Contemporary Art, the Chicago Cultural
Center, the Spertus Museum, the Grant Park Festival Center, the
Children's Museum at Navy Pier, Columbia College, and Roosevelt and
DePaul universities.
The second component of the Museum Campus Transportation Project is
the creation of an intermodal transportation center at the intersection
of Indiana Avenue and Roosevelt Road, which also is endorsed by the
City's Lakefront Transportation Study. This center would connect the
trolley route to bus routes, the CTA and Metra stations--the local
elevated train and subway--and to pedestrian walkways. It would also
include construction of an 850-car decked parking garage nearby. Mr.
Speaker, the intermodal transportation center will provide easier
access to the Museum Campus and to other lakefront offerings for all
visitors using all forms of transportation.
The Museum Campus and its City and private partners intend to run the
shuttle systems in the future. They will raise the necessary funds
through private contributions, increased museum entrance fees,
projected parking fees and City funds.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will agree that this project is the type
of project that we at the Federal level are happy to lend a helping
hand to. It makes good economic sense, good environmental sense, and is
an investment in the thousands of children and others who want to
experience and learn from Chicago's many cultural institutions. This
Sunday afternoon, the Museum Campus is holding an open house for
members of the Illinois delegation. I invite you and others in this
Body to come visit the Field, the Shedd and the Adler and see why I
believe in this project.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, three years ago, when the Contract with
America was being debated, had somebody told me that this Congress
would seriously consider, much less adopt, legislation calling for a
40% increase in highway spending, I would have said ``only on April
Fools Day.'' Well, here it is, April 1, 1998, and what do we have on
the Floor but a bill fitting that description that stands a good chance
of being approved.
Is it a joke? No indeed. Whatever people may think of it, the
Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act (BESTEA) we
are considering today is a very real and a very attractive proposal for
a number of reasons.
First of all, BESTEA meets a clear need, the need for better roads,
safer bridges and relief from the incessant traffic congestion that
plagues Chicago and many other urban areas of this country. Second, the
legislation deals with several rather obvious inequities, one being the
expenditure of federal gas taxes for purposes other than those intended
and another being that not all states receive a fair return on their
gas tax contributions. Third, the bill addresses these inequities in a
way that is not only generous but is designed to prevent their
recurrence. And fourth, almost every state and four congressional
districts out of every five stand to benefit from that generosity and
from the inclusion of nearly 1,800 demonstration projects in the
legislation.
So what is the problem?
Put simply, the problem is the way BESTEA, or H.R. 2400 as it is
otherwise known, goes about those tasks.
Yes, BESTEA meets a need, but that need can be met without shattering
the balanced budget agreement by a $26 billion margin.
Yes, BESTEA corrects several inequities, but there are other ways
those can be addressed besides setting a spending increase precedent so
monumental that many other special interest groups will be tempted to
seek similar treatment.
Yes, BESTEA is generous, but is being so generous to ourselves fair
to future generations who will have to pay the bill for any deficits
that may result?
Yes, BESTEA calls for budget cuts to offset those spending increases,
but it does not specify what they are or guarantee that they will be in
the bill when it is enacted into law.
Yes, BESTEA has state and local appeal but, at the same time, it is
so expensive and so replete with demonstration projects that it
threatens the nation's fiscal interests.
And yes, it may be easier to pass a bill like BESTEA that increases
spending enough to make everybody happy in the short term than it is to
adopt a measure that develops priorities, makes choices and promotes
fiscal year responsibility over the long run.
But expediency should not be the determining factor when it comes to
surface transportation legislation. Instead, our decisions should be
primarily based on the very same need for fiscal restraint and
responsibility that caused many of us to seek, and be elected to,
public office in the first place. Otherwise put, that means taking into
account the fact that Uncle Sam has been running in the red for 30
years, may continue to run in the red if we are not careful, and has
accumulated a $5.5 trillion national debt that should be reduced if its
forbidding consequences are not to hang like the
[[Page H1911]]
Sword of Damocles over the heads of our children and grandchildren.
Like many other Members, I cannot help but be impressed by what H.R.
2400 could do in the short term for my state and locality. Not only
that but I like the idea of taking the Highway Trust Fund off budget,
which BESTEA would accomplish. However, last year's balanced budget
agreement, which BESTEA would shred, provides for a 20% increase in
surface transportation spending which should be sufficient to fund the
most pressing infrastructure needs and the most deserving of the
demonstration projects. Moreover, the sanctity of the Highway Trust
Fund can be restored by reducing gas taxes to the level of annual
appropriations rather than by increasing spending so as to consume all
of those revenues. Furthermore, enactment of H.R. 2400 would appear to
be entirely inconsistent with the tenets of fiscal responsibility and
restraint to which the majority in this Congress has heretofore
adhered. To many, it might smack of hypocrisy.
For all those reasons, I find myself obliged to oppose this edition
of BESTEA. While it is possible that some of its excesses might be
addressed in conference, there is no assurance that they will be
corrected or that others will not be added. Worse yet, approval of this
bill by the House of Representatives would send absolutely the wrong
message about our future fiscal intentions. Accordingly, we should
return this bill to committee so that it can be scaled back to a level
that allows necessary infrastructure improvements to be made but is in
keeping with the balanced budget agreement. Granted, that will not be
easy and could take some time, but far better that than the
alternative. Believe me, our children and grandchildren will thank us
for looking beyond our immediate interests to their prospects as well.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. I rise today in support of H.R. 2400. I
commend Chairman Shuster for his hard work in constructing a bill that
recognizes that the nation's transportation infrastructure is in severe
disrepair and that public safety is at equally severe risk.
The statistics speak for themselves. The number of people killed on
our nation's highways has risen to 42,000 a year. Every 13 minutes
someone loses their life on our nation's highways. Many of these deaths
are the result of road and bridge conditions that are shameful.
We have a perfect example of this in my home state of Oklahoma. There
is a crosstown bridge in Oklahoma City that is in a serious state of
deterioation--so serious, in fact, that the Oklahoma Department of
Transportation has to examine the structure every 6 months and has to
spend over $300,000 a year in patch-work repairs.
Now, don't be mistaken. This is not a local highway. This is a
stretch of Interstate 40--a major, national East-West corridor that
connects in Oklahoma City with two other Interstates which connect
traffic from Mexico to Canada and from coast to coast. This crosstown
bridge carries more than 100,000 vehicles a day, and over 60% of the
truck traffic is from outside of Oklahoma.
With H.R. 2400, the critical repairs can finally begin on this
important national highway. An accident-waiting-to-happen can be
reconstructed into a safe, modern highway, and as a public official who
is responsible for public safety, I can tell you that this gives me a
great sense of relief.
I also want to commend the Chairman for returning ``trust'' to the
``trust fund'' in this legislation. It is time that the gas taxes paid
by our constituents for highway maintenance and construction be
directed to repairing and building safer highways for American
families. This bill achieves that long overdue goal.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2400 and
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2400, the Building
Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act. I do so because it is
imperative that Congress rectify the longstanding shortfall in
transportation funds received by Michigan.
For as long as I've served in the House and longer, my state of
Michigan has been a donor state. Along with other donor states,
Michigan has received far less than our fair share of transportation
funding, averaging just 85 cents for every dollar we send to the
federal government. Over the last 15 months, I have worked with the
Michigan Delegation, Chairman Shuster, Representative Oberstar and
others to address this longstanding injustice. I believe the bill
before us today represents the only available vehicle to bring about a
fairer deal for donor states like Michigan. Under this bill, Michigan's
annual highway funding would rise to $872.3 million a year. That's an
increase of $358 million a year over what Michigan received under the
1991 ISTEA law. The basic formula remains inequitable; Michigan would
remain a donor state, but at least this legislation is a step in the
right direction.
At the same time, I want to reiterate my chagrin over the failure of
the Majority in the House to put together a budget resolution which
would make clear how this bill would fit into the overall budget. Where
is the Majority's budget resolution? Simply put, this process puts the
cart before the horse. This bill is silent on the issue of spending
offsets to pay for the increased funding of transportation needs. We
cannot just pave over the commitment we made last year to live within
the framework of a balanced budget. When 214 of us voted last year to
support the Shuster/Oberstar amendment, we were saying: Yes, we need to
spend more on infrastructure. Yes, more money has to be made available
to donor states. The difference is that we were willing to pay for it.
The Republican Leadership in the House is abdicating fiscal
responsibility by continuing to delay a vote on the budget resolution.
Unless the House Leadership intends to completely abandon fiscal
discipline, sooner or later--and the sooner the better--we're going to
have to come up with the budget offsets to pay for increased
transportation spending. I regret we have not done so before today.
My vote today in support of the transportation bill is a vote to
continue the process of addressing the longstanding inequities of the
current highway funding formulas. The next step is for this bill to go
to conference with the Senate. I want to make it clear that my vote on
the final conference report will depend on two factors. First, fair
treatment for donor states like Michigan. I will not support any bill
that does not address the longstanding funding inequities borne by
Michigan and other donor states. Second, my vote on the conference
report will depend on concrete actions by the conferees and the Budget
Committee to bring this bill into line with last year's balanced budget
agreement, including appropriate, sound offsets.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
2400, a bill to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway
safety programs, and transit programs.
H.R. 2400 is extremely important to the State of Idaho and its
citizens. This legislation provides a significantly higher level of
funding for surface transportation programs as compared to the level
provided under the short term Surface Transportation Extension Act of
1997 which expires on May 1, 1998.
Although the highway program formula used to apportion funds to the
states under H.R. 2400 fails to fairly and equitably address the needs
of rural states, such as Idaho, it is important that Congress pass, and
the President sign, a new surface transportation act.
The State of Idaho support H.R. 2400 albeit with some concerns. I
include the letter from the Idaho Transportation Department with this
statement.
Transportation Department,
March 31, 1998.
Hon. Helen Chenoweth,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Re: House Vote on H.R. 2400 (BESTEA)
Dear Congressman Chenoweth: As you know, the House will
vote this week on H.R. 2400, the ``Building Efficient Surface
Transportation and Equity Act of 1997'' (BESTEA). The passage
of a new surface transportation act is extremely important to
the State of Idaho and its citizens and I wanted to convey to
you our thoughts on this critical vote.
First, we believe you should vote for the passage of BESTEA
for two reasons:
BESTEA provides a significantly higher level of funding for
surface transportation program as compared to the level
provided under the now expired Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The House bill
authorizes $218.3 billion in transportation funding over a
six-year period, an increase of more than 40% over the ISTEA
levels.
It is very important that Congress passes a new surface
transportation act as soon as possible. States are now
operating under the short-term ``Surface Transportation
Extension Act'' which expires on May 1, 1998. After that date
there will be no federal-aid funding available to the states.
Most transportation programs will be completely shut down or
severely curtailed. In northern states like Idaho and entire
highway construction season may be missed entirely.
Secondly, we have the following major objection to the
content of the House bill which should be corrected in
Conference Committee with the Senate:
The highway program formulas used to apportion funds to the
states under BESTEA do not fairly and equitably address the
needs or characteristics of rural states. An overemphasis is
placed on factors that favor urbanized states such as
population, contributions to the Highway Trust Fund and total
public road mileage. Urban highway miles and vehicle miles-
of-travel are double counted while those in rural areas are
not. Local road mileage and traffic are used as factors in
determining the distribution of funds for the Interstate and
National Highway System programs, which are both strictly
national and federal in character and use.
If you have any questions concerning the Transportation
Department's position on H.R. 2400, please don't hesitate to
call me at (208) 334-8807.
Sincerely,
Dwight M. Bower,
Director.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in reluctant
opposition to HR 2400, the
[[Page H1912]]
Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act (BESTEA).
Quite simply, this bill is too much of a good thing. Infrastructure
funding is critical for the economic future of our nation, but this
bill goes too far and in doing so breaks the bi-partisan balanced
budget agreement of last year. We should be debating an increase in
transportation funding, but we should be having this debate first
within the context of a budget resolution where we can analyze
transportation needs relative to other critical domestic priorities.
Above all, I believe we must keep to the spirit of the balanced budget
agreement we passed last year. This year, we have a balanced budget for
the first time in 30 years and today the House is being asked to pass a
spending bill which blows a $40 billion hole in the budget.
Clearly, our states have transportation needs that are significantly
underfunded and I agree that we should be increasing federal funding
for transportation. For my home state of Florida, this bill does help
address the fundamental inequities in the current funding formula.
Under current law, Florida receives an average of 77 cents for every
dollar sent to Washington in gasoline taxes. BESTEA would increase this
return to roughly 87 cents on the dollar. I commend the Chairman and
Ranking Member for their commitment to addressing this issue and I urge
them to continue to work on a fairer funding formula to ensuring that
every state receives its fair share of transportation dollars.
Mr. Chairman, despite this improvement in the funding formula and the
fact that this bill funds many worthwhile and important transportation
projects, I must oppose it based on the overall levels of funding. I
believe we can and must find a way to increase transportation funding
without abandoning fiscal responsibility. This bill does not offset the
increases in spending, leaving it only to a promise of future,
unidentified cuts in other programs. Furthermore, the overall levels of
funding under this bill set up a fiscal train wreck in the coming years
as Congress will have to make massive cuts in other domestic priorities
to maintain a balanced budget.
When I was elected to Congress, I was skeptical that this body had
the fiscal restraint to balance the budget. This past year, I had hope
that things had changed. We worked together to pass a tough balanced
budget act in a bi-partisan manner and proved to the American people
that we were serious about ending decades of deficit spending. Now, no
sooner than the Congressional Budget Office has certified that we have
balanced the budget with the possibility of surpluses for the near
future, Congress is rushing out to spend tens of billions of dollars
that we simply do not have.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reaffirm this Congress's
commitment to fiscal responsibility and vote no on HR 2400.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2400, the
Building Efficiency and Surface Transportation and Equity Act (BESTEA).
This legislation provides a total of over $218.3 billion over six years
for federal highway and transit programs. This funding is much needed
and overdue, and will provide Americans with a stronger transportation
infrastructure.
The effects of BESTEA are clear. It will save lives by improving the
safety of our highways, and will improve the environment by emphasizing
mass transit, the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program (CMAQ), and
non-motorized uses such as bike trails.
The First Congressional District of Colorado is one of the top ten
fastest growing metropolitan area in the country and has witnessed
unprecedented demands on its transportation system. The need for wise
and creative investment in transportation has never been greater for
Denver metropolitan area. This legislation will address these needs,
laying a sound foundation for federal-local partnership.
However, I believe that the offsets for BESTEA must not come from
important domestic programs, such as education, environment or health
care. Therefore, I will oppose efforts which seek to sacrifice the
progress this country has made to improve the quality of life. Congress
needs to work in a bipartisan manner to ensure that these offsets are
fair and appropriate.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my appreciation to
Chairman Bud Shuster and express my strong support for the provisions
in H.R. 2400 that promote the use of clean fuel vehicles and technology
in public transit, and the incentives it provides which allow consumers
greater opportunity to travel in environmentally sound modes of
transportation.
The CMAQ, research and development, bus and bus facility grant
provisions of H.R. 2400 are examples of the Committee's effort to begin
coordinating federal transportation policy with federal environmental
policy. Giving states the opportunity to allow an electric vehicle with
fewer than two occupants to operate in an high occupancy vehicle lane
is yet another example.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, promoting policies which improve our air
quality is a subject near and dear to my heart. As a former mayor,
county supervisor, member of my regional air resources board, and
member of our county mass transit authority, I understand the
difficulties local governments and the private sector face in meeting
federal mandates. I saw first hand how the federal government
subsidized polluting fuels, while at the same time heavily regulating
small businesses over their emissions levels. Small businesses, local
governments, and consumer vehicles have stepped up to the plate. It's
time the Federal government do its share.
How many times have you been driving down the street and saw black
smoke belching out of a bus and that black soot entering into the air?
Ninety percent of all bus purchases are paid for with federal dollars.
While the federal government has been paying for these polluting
vehicles, small companies, local governments and the private sector
have been reducing their emissions levels, oftentimes under the threat
of severe punitive action. It's time that the federal government lead
by example and operate under the same set of clean air rules we require
of everyone else.
Yesterday, I testified before the Rules Committee in order to offer
an amendment which would have phased out the spending of federal
dollars in this bill on polluting fuels in mass transit. This amendment
would have simply required that any federal funds in the bill which
were to be spent on mass transit vehicles must be spent on technologies
which meet EPA's definition of clean fuel technology. This amendment
would not have been retroactive, and would have only applied to future
vehicle purchases. Unfortunately this amendment was not ruled in order,
but I was heartened by the positive response I received from my
colleagues on this subject. In fact, I plan on introducing a bill later
this Spring that would help accomplish this goal.
Chairman Shuster has been very helpful in assisting me with moving
this proposal along. In fact, we worked together to add Section 340 in
the Manager's Amendment to H.R. 2400. Section 340 directs the
Comptroller General to conduct a study to examine the current status of
clean fuels technology, which is to be completed by the end of 1999.
This study will be reported to the Congress by January 1, 2000.
I am confident that this study will demonstrate what numerous major
cities in non-attainment zones already know. The technology exists to
move our mass transit systems to cleaner burning fuels. These cities
are already accomplishing much in this area. San Diego County made the
herculean effort to begin phasing out its diesel burning buses to
natural gas buses. By the year 2000, 26% of its bus fleet will be using
clean fuel technology that already exists.
Again, I thank Chairman Shuster in working with me on this vital
matter, as well as Chairman Bliley of the Commerce Committee, who has
always given me the opportunity to pursue new methods of improving our
air quality.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to speak today in support of
H.R. 2400, the Transportation Authorization bill. Our nation's
infrastructure has been overlooked and treated as a low priority for
far too long. It is time to re-invest in our nation's roads, bridges,
and other surface transportation needs. By improving and properly
maintaining our infrastructure, we will enhance new growth
opportunities, commerce, and safety. I believe this legislation meets
many of these goals.
In addition, the regional distribution of gas tax and user fees are
more properly allocated among all 50 states in this bill than in the
past. As a member of the Donor State Coalition, this represents a hard
fought victory for those states, like Alabama, that have been paying in
more in gas taxes than they have received in federal highway funds. I
pledge to continue in my efforts to see that donor states ultimately
receive a 95% overall rate-of-return and further that these states
receive a rate-of-return of 100% of the fund distributed to states.
Perhaps most importantly, H.R. 2400 addresses the infrastructure
priorities of the State of Alabama. Of our Governor's top highway
priorities, I am pleased to say that two of these projects are located
in my district in Southeast Alabama. The bill provides additional
funding, at my request, for both the Montgomery Outer Loop project and
the Dothan I-10 Connector.
Once completed, the Outer Loop will link I-85 with I-65 and U.S. 80.
This will allow for more orderly growth in and around Montgomery, our
state capital. The eastern side of Montgomery is experiencing the most
rapid growth of the area, so construction of this outer loop project
will ease the burdens currently placed on our existing transportation
routes.
The Dothan project will connect Dothan with Interstate 10 in
northwest Florida. Additionally, this freeway will serve as an
important link between Fort Rucker, home of the U.S. Army Aviation
Warfighting Center, and the interstate system.
[[Page H1913]]
Both of these projects are essential in meeting the increasing
demands in these rapidly growing and developing areas. Further, as
priorities of the state transportation officials, these projects are in
the state's long range plan and are thereby assured of receiving the
requisite state matching funds.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation represents a balanced blue print for
renewing American's highway infrastructure and safety needs over the
next six years. I am confident that the funding commitments of the bill
will remain within our balanced budget structure, and I urge its
adoption.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2400, the
Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act. I commend
Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar for their work in crafting
legislation that meets the transportation needs of this nation.
For the last six years Alabama has received an average of $330
billion per year for transportation. When this bill becomes law Alabama
will receive $552 billion per year. This will mean a 67% increase and
brings a level of fairness for Alabama since we have been getting the
short end of the stick on transportation funding. Fairness in this
process is crucial to ensure our roads and bridges are as we move into
the 21st Century.
However, I am most pleased with the creation of a specific category
for the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) for the first
time. The Fourth Congressional District of Alabama contains very few
miles of four lane highways. Unfortunately, the Interstate Highway
System did not include a route to connect Birmingham, Alabama with
Memphis, Tennessee. This is an unacceptable omission from the
Interstate Highway System
Thankfully, the Appalachian Development Highway System includes
Corridor X which will connect these two cities, and runs through North
Alabama, In addition, the system includes Corridor V which connects
with Corridor X in Alabama and runs through North Alabama to
Chattanooga, Tennessee is part of the Appalachian Development Highway
System.
Category funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System is
crucial to expedite completion of these two highways. Traditionally,
the Appalachian Development Highway System has had to rely on the
annual appropriations process. Corridor X and Corridor V fared well in
some years, but other years they received little, if any funds.
This made it difficult for long term planning and has needlessly
delayed completion of both highways. In fact the Appalachian
Development Highway System is only 78% complete while the Interstate
Highway System is 99% complete.
Category funding ensures a stable source of funding that will
complete the corridors in Alabama and throughout the thirteen states of
Appalachia. I urge all Members to move this bill to Conference so we
can complete this process before we lose additional time during the
annual construction season.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2400,
the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act. This bill
reauthorizes highway, mass transit and highway safety programs for six
years. By passing this legislation we will be renewing our commitment
to investing in America's infrastructure.
Our infrastructure is crumbling around us. In my home State of
Illinois, for example, a quarter of all the bridges are structurally
deficient. Forty-three percent of road in Illinois are in poor or
mediocre condition. Driving on these roads costs Illinois motorists $1
billion a year in extra vehicle operating costs. That is $144 per
driver. These statistics are shameful. As we enter the next millennium,
we cannot allow our nation's infrastructure to languish in the past. We
have ignored these problems for too long.
As a Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee which
crafted this bill, I know this bill is a solid piece of legislation.
H.R. 2400 will enable us to bring our transportation needs into the
21st Century. Under this bill, highways and transit systems will
operate more efficiently. People and goods will travel more safely
because of the highway safety programs and initiatives under this bill.
I will promote a cleaner environment and decrease the red tape
associated with environmental regulations.
I realize that many have criticized the high priority projects
included in this bill. They call these projects ``pork.'' However, I
would like to clarify that these projects are included only after
consulting with local elected officials, local highway departments and
state departments of transportation about the transportation needs of
communities. Republicans espouse the need to give control back to the
localities. That is exactly what these high priority projects are all
about. The local governments know what their transportation priorities
and needs are. By including funding for local projects in H.R. 2400 we
are allowing local and regional officials to decide on and meet their
own transportation needs. Further, the authorization for high priority
projects is only 5 percent of the total funding in the bill. No
programs in the bill are compromised at the expense of including high
priority projects.
In my district in Southwestern Illinois these projects are critical
to meet the transportation needs of many communities. For example, the
MetroLink light rail system provides a vital transportation link for
commuters and travelers in the St. Louis-MetroEast area. Under this
bill, MetroLink will be expanded from East St. Louis to Belleville Area
College and then to MidAmerica Airport. When this extension is
complete, the region's two airports, St. Louis-Lambert International in
St. Louis, MO and MidAmerica Airport in St. Clair County, Illinois will
be linked by one light rail line. MetroLink, whose ridership has
surpassed all expectations, has had an enormous impact on the
environment, transportation efficiency and economic development in my
district and the entire St. Louis metropolitan region. It is precisely
projects like these that are so important in this bill. These projects
are vital to communities.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. We must pass this bill so critical
infrastructure funding can get to our states. This bill is not about
pork! It is about improving our transportation policies so that
Americans and our goods can travel efficiently and safely throughout
our nation.
Let's pass this bill today so we can get it to the President before
funding expires on May 1. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in
favor of H.R. 2400.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleagues
in strong support of the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and
Equity Act. I want to thank the Chairman of the Transportation
Committee, Mr. Shuster and the Ranking Democrat Mr. Oberstar for their
strong leadership in getting this bill to the floor today. BESTEA as
the bill is also known, will authorize $218 billion over six years for
federal highways and mass transit programs. It would also modify
highway funding formulas to ensure that each state receives 90% of the
amount it pays to the federal government in gas taxes.
I also want to strongly urge my colleagues to support continuation
of the Department of Transportation's Disadvantage Enterprise Program,
(DBE). This is an issue that is of the utmost importance to the
President. And it is a program that was first enacted for highway
transit construction projects under President Reagan.
It is an equal opportunity program which uses flexible goals
established by state and local transportation programs to ensure that
small businesses owned by women, minorities and other disadvantaged
individuals have a fair chance to compete for federal transportation
contracts.
Whether we believe so or not, it is a fact that minorities and women
continue to face discrimination on a daily basis. We must not turn the
clock back on this segment of our population by eliminating a program
that, since its inception, has significantly increased the percentage
of women and minority-owned construction firms.
We must defeat the Roukema amendment and protect economic opportunity
for women and minorities.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Chairman of the
Surface Transportation Subcommittee for his willingness to support the
transportation needs of my constituents. I also want to especially
thank my colleague the Ranking Member of the Surface Transportation
Subcommittee Mr. Rahall, for his help as well.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill which will serve as the
engine to further drive our nation's economy into the 21st century and
beyond.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2400, the Building Efficient Surface
Transportation and Equity Act of 1997 (BESTEA), provides much-needed
funding for the improvement and renewal of highways across the country.
I support this legislation because, as I see it, it is the first step
towards improving our infrastructure. However, I would like to share my
concerns that this legislation does not provide taxpayers in states
like California with a fair share in federal transportation funding.
This is an issue that we cannot ignore and must address in the near
future.
Under BESTEA, Californians will pay $22 billion towards federal
highway funding, but will only be guaranteed $19 billion in return. We
must stop asking California taxpayers to pay for highway and
infrastructure improvements that they may never see. They should not
constantly be forced to sacrifice their hard-earned money to projects
in some other town, in some other state.
As it stands, communities throughout California are struggling to
maintain their infrastructure. For many quickly growing communities, it
is nearly impossible to keep up, and this is not only unfair for
taxpayers, it is becoming unsafe.
[[Page H1914]]
Mr. Chairman, while I support BESTEA, I urge my colleagues to keep
California and other ``donor states'' across the country in mind when
voting on this and related legislation. Let's not wait to address this
dilemma and find a funding formula that is fair for California
taxpayers.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support
for the Indian Reservation Roads program (IRR). As the House considers
BESTEA, I urge the conferees to fully support the Senate amount of $250
million annually for the program.
The needs of the Native American community are often overlooked and
under funded. The conditions of reservation roads are the worst in this
country and immediate attention and funding is badly needed in order
for tribes to attract economic development. We must not ignore these
needs.
In the bill under consideration today, the House has authorized up to
$212 million annually for the IRR program. While I am pleased that the
Committee recognized the need for an increase in the program, I am
hopeful that the Committee will recede to the Senate's amount of $250
million annually for the IRR program. I believe that this modest
increase is essential to the continued economic progress and
improvement of our nation's tribal communities.
Again, I urge the conferees to support this vital program for Indian
reservations.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant opposition to
H.R. 2400, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act
(BESTEA) which reauthorizes federal highway spending. States
desperately need adequate resources to keep pace with the stresses
placed on their transportation infrastructure. While I am supportive of
increased funding for transportation infrastructure, I believe the bill
before us today contains a flawed funding formula which leaves rural
states without the resources to address their transportation needs.
Highway funding is vitally important to every state in America,
especially my state of North Dakota since we have more miles of road
per capita than any state in the nation. Highways are the lifeline of
our economy, providing a means to transport commodities to market and
linking the distance between our cities and towns.
This bill unfortunately short changes several rural states. Large
rural states face unique challenges in maintaining, repairing and
building their transportation network. However, the funding
distribution formula contained in the bill results in a drop in total
spending for North Dakota and other rural states from the existing
formula. Under BESTEA, North Dakota would receive $34 million a year
less than what it would receive if the bill were enacted using the
existing formula. Maintaining a sound and efficient transportation
network across the country depends on adequate funding for both urban/
suburban and rural areas.
The transportation bill which passed the Senate contained a funding
formula which strikes a balance between the competing interests of
urban/suburban and rural areas. I am hopeful that as the conference
committee begins work on the two bills that we can reach a funding
formula that recognizes the unique aspects of rural states.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the Chairman for the
highway bill we are voting on today, which is truly bipartisan and
reflects a commitment to ensuring the continued viability of our
national highway infrastructure.
I want to take a few moments to express my support for an important
domestic renewable energy program that, unfortunately, is not included
in this bill, but which I hope to see included in the final ISTEA
reauthorization conference report. This program is the Federal Ethanol
Program.
Ethanol is a very important, value-added market for agriculture,
providing a critical economic stimulus throughout the Midwest. Today,
the third largest use of corn is for ethanol production, behind only
feed and export uses. Ethanol production utilizes approximately 7
percent of the nation's corn corp, increasing farm income and
generating tremendous economic activity both within rural America and
nationwide.
The use of ethanol also lessens our dependence on foreign oil. Today,
we depend on oil imports to meet more than 54% of our consumption.
Using ethanol decreases the demand for oil, thus increasing our energy
independence and safeguarding against problems in the volatile Middle
East.
Ethanol provides tremendous environmental benefits, including a
reduction of harmful emissions of carbon monoxide, ozone, and
toxicities. Ethanol can also alleviate concerns about climate change
and rising greenhouse gases. A recent study completed by the Argonne
National Laboratory found that use of corn-ethanol results in a 50-60
percent reduction in fossil energy use and a 35 to 46 percent reduction
in greenhouse gas emissions.
The benefits of Ethanol are well documented, and I believe it is
crucial for the federal government to maintain a strong ethanol policy.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that, as this bill moves forward, you can support
the Senate language on ethanol.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to
discuss the ramifications of a rule, finalized by the U.S. Department
of Transportation last year, known as HM-200. This rule needlessly
imposes the will of the federal government upon states with regard to
the regulations governing the transport of Hazardous Materials in the
agriculture industry. Mr. Chairman, this Committee and this Congress
are right to take action to prevent the usurpation of state's rights
and the resulting effect to commerce and safety of a rule which is not
supported in its conclusions by any evidence of improved safety, or any
consideration of its impact on the community it seeks to protect.
The farmers who produce the many crops that form the basis of the
American agricultural economy rely on agricultural production materials
to aid in the development of a healthy and robust harvest that is the
safest and most abundant in the world. These materials are sold by,
delivered and applied by agricultural retailers who are among the most
experienced men and women in the country in handling these types of
materials. The rigors of continuous training and a lifetime of
experience have taught them how to safety store, transport, and apply
hazardous agricultural inputs.
As a result, some states with a large agricultural economy have given
the retail community an exception to complying with Hazardous Materials
(HAZMAT) transport regulations for the intrastate transport of
hazardous agriculture inputs from retail facility to farm, farm to
farm, and from farm to facility. My own home state of Illinois is one
of these states, and despite having such an exception, the Illinois
Department of Transportation (IDOT) has closely monitored the
agricultural community to ensure its safety. In nearly fifteen years,
IDOT has yet to find a reason to revoke these exceptions.
In early 1997, the Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation finalized its HM-200
rule. This rule forces states to implement the same standards for all
intrastate HAZMAT transport as they do for federally regulated
interstate transport. As a result, states which already have exceptions
in place would lose them, as HM-200 would preempt their existence.
Other states which do not already have exceptions in place would lose
the ability to provide one to their retailer community. Despite a
petition signed by a 48 member coalition asking the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) to reconsider this aspect of its HM-200 rule, and
numerous letters to RSPA expressing industry sentiment, the
administration refused to re-examine its position of the HM-200 rule.
Included within H.R. 2400 is language which would preserve the rights
of states to provide HAZMAT transport exceptions for retailers and
farming communities. This language by no means mandates nationwide
exceptions, it only provides the option for states to provide them.
Supporting this language are a wide bi-partisan array of House members
from across the country, as well as a 57 member industry coalition
representing every aspect of the agricultural community.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you have joined me in supporting this
language which will prevent the federal government from imposing yet
another onerous burden on states. The US DOT has produced no studies or
accident reports to substantiate the policy of denying exceptions to
retailers. In fact, the US DOT has joined several other public interest
groups to counter our efforts with respect to HM-200. The Agency has
consistently attempted to substantiate this position by using the
results of accident reports for interstate commerce.
This agriculture industry and the large, long-haul vehicles carrying
thousands of gallons/lbs. of hazardous agents at high rates of speed
down interstate highways have virtually nothing in common, and
therefore accident statistics for one do not relate to the other. Under
HAZMAT rules, placarding, shipping papers and toll-free 800 emergency
response phone numbers are to be utilized as a measure to help in
responding to a spill or fire. However, within agricultural
communities, emergency responders are typically volunteers who are
intimately familiar with the types of materials involved with
production agriculture and who would have few problems in identifying
the agents involved in this type of incident.
Mr. Chairman, this language within H.R. 2400 is sorely needed. It is
estimated that compliance with HM-200 could cost the average retail
facility $12,300. In addition to being an out-of-pocket cost to the
retailer, this is going to be yet another expense that is passed along
to the American farmer, who every year, sees his or her margins
continue to shrink as the result of increased costs and
[[Page H1915]]
government intervention. I appreciate and gladly thank the Chairman and
the other members of this committee for the inclusion of this language
in H.R. 2400, and would hope that as this legislation moves into
conference that we would all endeavor to ensure its inclusion in the
conference report.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on behalf of myself and my
distinguished colleague from New York, Mr. Towns. Today is a very
significant day for the residents of my congressional district and for
the constituents of Congressman Towns. We have worked tirelessly for
years with the communities in Brooklyn surrounding the Gowanus
Expressway to find the best solution to the congestion and dilapidated
condition of this major highway and key component in the New York
area's transportation network. These residents have patiently asked
that a full study of alternatives to the planned reconstruction of the
Gowanus Expressway be conducted.
For the economic viability of the area and the environment health of
the families living near this planned reconstruction, it is crucial
that the impact on the surrounding communities be adequately assessed.
For these reasons, I thank the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, particularly Chairman Shuster, Chairman Petri, Ranking
Member Oberstar, and Ranking Member Rahall, for understanding these
concerns and supporting our proposal.
The Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act finally
responds to the pleas of these New York neighborhoods. H.R. 2400
authorizes $24 million dollars for New York State to conduct a Major
Investment Study (MIS) of the Gowanus Expressway Corridor. None of
these funds may be used to supplement or finance any part of the
currently proposed rehabilitation and reconstruction of the highway.
The intent of the funding is to provide for an MIS to determine the
short and long term social, economic and environmental benefits and
costs of different alternatives to rebuilding the current elevated
highway--including a tunnel.
The MIS will include Phase I to IV civil engineering and design
documents so as to accurately determine the initial and long term
fiscal, environmental, social and economic costs of replacing the
current elevated structure of the Gowanus with a tunnel. This analysis
will include a complete engineering study, including hydro-geologic
study and the cost of tunnel connectivity with bridges and tunnels
adjacent to the corridor.
Using the methodology devised in the ``West Brooklyn Traffic Calming
Study'' CMAQ proposal, the MIS will devise mitigation measures to
reduce current and future traffic diversions from the Gowanus
Expressway in adjacent neighborhoods. Additionally, the MIS will
include an assessment of service improvements to all subway lines
needed to produce an increase in ridership and reduction in motor
vehicle traffic in the Gowanus corridor before, during and after the
reconstruction of the highway. Upon completion of the MIS and tunnel
alternative study, any remaining authorized funds should be held for
the future planning and design phase of the Gowanus project.
The Gowanus MIS Project is part of a sound national and regional
transportation policy. With this transportation proposal, the Gowanus
neighborhoods are one step closer to real answers to this long-standing
local transportation problem. This proposal is not only about
transportation--it is also about the economic development and
empowerment future of our communities.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, funding levels: $217 billion total over the
next six years; $181 million for highways and highway safety; and $36
billion for transit.
Illinois will receive nearly 36 percent more per year under BESTEA.
Illinois received $684 million per year under ISTEA and will now
receive over $1 billion per year under BESTEA.
Illinois needs: According to IDOT, more than 98 percent of highway
and bridge funding will have to be allocated to the repair of existing
roads and bridges over the next five years.
For the first time in 14 years, the number of road miles considered
to be in poor condition will increase from 2,300 miles to 4,300 miles.
10,681 miles are considered to be in poor or mediocre condition--this
is roughly \1/3\ of the total federal aid miles for Illinois (i.e., \1/
3\ of Illinois' federal aid highway miles are in poor or mediocre
condition).
Illinois Citizens for Better Highways released a report that
concluded that rural road repairs, upgrades and bridge replacements are
underfunded b7 $227 million annually.
For example, Tazewell County, alone, will need $8.3 million over the
next five years for highway and bridge rehabilitation.
IDOT estimates that 42 percent of county roads and 51 percent of
township roads are substandard.
Special additional federal funding is needed so that Illinois can
restore and maintain such important roadways as the Stevenson
Expressway and I-74 running through Peoria.
Stevenson Expressway repairs are expected to cost $567 million; I-74
rehabilitation and reconstruction is expected to cost $193.6 million.
National needs: The demand for high cost interstate highway
reconstruction funds has outpaced the money available by more than 9 to
1.
In FY '96 alone, 18 states requested $687 million in project work,
while only six states were awarded a total of $66 million in funding.
Limited funds meant that $621 million in requests went unfunded in
1996. The current ISTEA I-4R (reconstruction, rehabilitation,
resurfacing and repair program) level is averaging only $63 million per
year.
In 1993, almost 32 percent of the Interstate pavement was in poor or
mediocre condition, and 60% of the nation's major roads are considered
by the federal government to be substandard and in need of repair.
The FHWA estimated that $202.6 billion ($10.1 billion annually) is
needed over the next 20 years to maintain the 1993 conditions and
performance of the Interstate system. Of that amount, 40 percent would
be needed just for system preservation.
In order to preserve today's pavement quality, 100,000 miles of roads
would have to be restored every year.
Safety hazards caused by poor roads and highways: According to the
Keep America Moving Coalition, ``Substandard designs, outdated safety
features, poor pavement quality and other road conditions are a factor
in 30% of all fatal highway accidents.''
FHWA has found that converting two-lane roads to four-lane roads with
a median decreased traffic deaths by 71%. Widening a two-lane road by
just two feet reduces accidents by 23%.
Economic costs to motorists caused by poor roads and highways:
American motorists suffer expenses of $21.5 billion annually in vehicle
operating and maintenance costs due to damage caused by driving on poor
roads. This translates to costs of $122 per driver.
General economic benefits of road and highway investments: FHWA
estimates that for every $1 billion in highway investment, 42,100 jobs
are created. Every dollar invested in the Interstate Highway System
generates $6 in economic returns.
BESTEA solutions to poor quality roads: Section 113 of BESTEA
provides a formula and discretionary grant program that will provide
significant amounts of money over the next 6 years to repair and
resurface high cost interstate highways: $165 million for FY '98;
$412.5 million for FY '99; $670 million for FY '2000 through 2003.
These funds would be available to fund ``major reconstruction or
improvement projects on the Interstate system. In order to be eligible,
a project must cost over $200 million or cost more than 50% of a
State's Federal-aid highway apportionments.'' The project must also be
ready to go to construction.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this historic bipartisan
legislation restores the word trust to the Highway Trust Fund. For
years the Congress has spent money dedicated to Highway Trust Fund on
wasteful government programs, at the expense of our National
transportation infrastructure. A trust fund is exactly that, a trust
fund. Whether it is the Transportation Trust Fund or the Social
Security Trust Fund, we need to restore the trust.
In addition, BESTEA, goes a long way towards restoring funding equity
to donor states like Indiana. The historic shortfall and inequity in
Federal transportation funding in Indiana has left Hoosiers with an
old, congested, and inadequate infrastructure. Allowing the gasoline
taxes paid by Hoosiers to be spent in Indiana will allow Indiana to
modernize our transportation infrastructure for the 21st century. This
legislation distributes funds more equitably among States under the
revised funding formulas. I want to thank and commend Chairman Shuster,
Ranking Member Oberstar and the Members of the Committee for their hard
work and encourage them to fight to maintain the equity levels in this
bill when this legislation is debated in conference.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important
legislation. The bill before us provides much needed funding for
critical transportation projects across the country.
For a long time now, many of us here today have spoken about the need
to rebuild critical parts of our transportation infrastructure.
Pothole-filled roads, crumbling and dangerous bridges, and inefficient
and outdated transportation systems have crippled the economy of many
parts of our country. We must continually rebuild our infrastructure if
we are to ensure that our economy remains strong into the next century.
In addition, this bill maintains several critical programs to ensure
that we are doing more than just paving roads. In particular, I am
pleased that the bill contains the ``enhancement set-aside'' provision
which allows states to use these funds for pedestrian walkways, bike
lanes, scenic easements and other preservation activities. In addition,
this bill continues the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement program, which provides funding
[[Page H1916]]
to areas with air pollution problems for reducing traffic congestion.
It is critically important that this legislation continues to support
alternative transportation systems that address quality of life issues
and will help preserve our environment.
Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said about the special projects in this
bill. I believe strongly that any Federal spending--be it for
transportation, education or health care--has to be an efficient and
responsible use of our tax dollars. I know that the projects I have
requested and received funding for in this bill meet that test. All of
these projects are widely supported in my district and address critical
local needs such as safety and promoting alternative transportation.
For example, this bill provides $8 million for the widening of
dangerous Highway 46 in the northern part of my district, as my husband
had requested last year. This road is most infamously known as the road
that James Dean was killed on some 40 years ago, but to my constituents
it is known as the road that is dangerous for them today. Since 1992,
48 people have died on this road and nearly 700 have been injured due
to the volatile mix of traffic that uses this road, which includes
school buses, trucks going back and forth from the coast to the Central
Valley, farm and ranch traffic, and daily commuters.
This road has been such a problem a local citizens group, called
``Fix 46,'' was formed to advocate for improvements. Through their
efforts some progress has been made on Route 46, such as implanting
rumble strips and an enhanced Highway Patrol presence. But as it has
been pointed out to me by everyone from the leaders of ``Fix 46,'' Mary
Chambers and Tom Rusch, to the California Highway Patrol, these are
only short-term fixes and widening the road is a necessity.
The funding for this road is going to the type of community that is
too often forgotten in Washington--small, rural and out of the way--and
I am very proud that I have been able to help them help build a safer
and more productive community.
In addition to the Hwy 46 funding, this bill also provides targeted
funds for locally supported, fully vetted and important local
transportation projects such as the installation of emergency call
boxes on secluded Highway 166 near Santa Maria and the upgrade of the
332 call boxes throughout Santa Barbara County to make them all
handicapped and accessible. This legislation will also allow the city
of Guadalupe and the county of Santa Barbara to undertake some much
needed repaving work, and the city of Santa Maria to fund three new
bikeway segments.
In addition, this bill also will provide funds for a traffic calming
project and pedestrian boardwalks in the coastal cities of Grover Beach
and Pismo Beach, and for road reconstruction in Arroye Grande. Finally,
funds are included for a street widening project in San Luis Obispo and
for road widening and bike lane installation south of the city.
I am strongly in support of this legislation as it responds to needs
across the country and to specific transportation needs on the Central
Coast. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to speak today in support of
H.R. 2400, the Transportation Authorization bill. Our nation's
infrastructure has been overlooked and treated as a low priority for
far too long. It is time to re-invest in our nation's roads, bridges,
and other surface transportation needs. By improving and properly
maintaining our infrastructure, we will enhance new growth
opportunities, commerce, and safety. I believe this legislation meets
many of these goals.
In addition, the regional distribution of gas tax and user fees are
more properly allocated among all 50 states in this bill than in the
past. As a member of the Donor State Coalition, this represents a hard
fought victory for those states, like Alabama, that have been paying
more in gas taxes then they have received in federal highway funds. I
pledge to continue my efforts to see that donor states ultimately
receive a 95 percent overall rate-of-return and, further, that these
states receive a rate-of-return of 100 percent of the funds distributed
to states.
Perhaps most importantly, H.R. 2400 addresses the infrastructure
priorities of the State of Alabama. Of our Governor's top highway
priorities, I am pleased to say that two of these projects are located
in my district in Southeast Alabama. The bill provides additional
funding, at my request, for both the Montgomery Outer Loop project and
the Dothan I-10 Connector.
Once completed, the Outer Loop will link I-85 with I-65 and US 80.
This will improve traffic safety and allow for more orderly growth in
and around Montgomery, our state capital. The eastern side of
Montgomery and surrounding area represent one of the most rapidly
growing regions in the state, so construction of this outer loop
project will ease the burdens currently placed on our existing
transportation routes.
The Dothan project will connect Dothan with Interstate 10 in
northwest Florida. Additionally, this freeway will serve as an
important link between Fort Rucker, home of the U.S. Army Aviation
Warfighting Center, and the interstate system.
Both of these projects are essential in meeting the increasing
demands in these rapidly growing and developing areas. Further, as
priorities of the state transportation officials, these projects are in
the state's long range plan and are thereby assured of receiving the
requisite state matching funds.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation represents a balanced blue print for
renewing America's highway infrastructure and safety needs over the
next six years. I am confident that the funding commitments of the bill
will remain within our balanced budget structure, and I urge it's
adoption.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to
thank Chairman Shuster and Chairman Petri for their leadership in
bringing the needed reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act to the floor. The efficient movement of
commerce and people is among the keys to a successful free market
economy.
This bill transcends simple infrastructure development and advocates
innovative strategies to fight air pollution caused by congestion. I am
pleased that my Nevada colleague, Mr. Gibbons, and I were able to
include language that will provide states with more flexibility in the
use of their CMAQ allocations. Our proposal will afford states the
opportunity to leverage Federal funding with private dollars through
the establishment of public-private partnerships--joint ventures that
will release innovations in the private sector to develop breakthrough
technologies that substantially reduce air pollution. With dwindling
Federal resources, states need this vital option to meet clean air
requirements.
The CMAQ program is intended to promote projects and strategies that
will assist states in the attainment of ambient air quality standards
for ozone and carbon monoxide. Cars and other transportation account
for one-third of greenhouse gas emissions. Because of this, we have a
responsibility to aggressively promote technologies--such as non-
traditional fuels--that can combat some of the negative effects of our
progress. States must find new and innovative means of attacking their
air quality problems associated with congestion and transportation. Our
amendment would energize community stakeholders to promote cooperative
efforts with the scientific, industrial, and other such organizations
that can bring unique capabilities to the table that develop new ways
to reduce emissions.
I am proud to say that one such innovative non-traditional fuel has
been developed in Nevada. This small startup company--A-55 Clean
Fuels--has developed a water-phased hydrocarbon fuel emulsion, which,
because of its unparalleled ability to fight the pervasive air
pollutant NOX, warrants special consideration. Tests of this
innovative fuel are being performed around the country on a wide-range
of applications including cars, trucks, and buses to confirm
performance and environmental benefits. EPA has verified these tests.
The potential of this fuel to reduce dangerous air pollution is
enormous. Therefore, it is important to include this fuel as an
eligible activity for CMAQ funding because:
NOX, one of the major building blocks of ozone and
particulate matter, is reduced from 50% to 80% by using the fuel. Soot
and smoke are also reduced.
It is market driven, offering consumers a fuel that is cost
competitive and often less expensive than diesel and gasoline.
The fuel is safer than traditional fuels. It does not readily ignite
outside the combustion chamber making it ideal for school buses, trucks
and all vehicles that traverse our nation's roadways.
Decision-makers need every possible alternative in their tool kit to
address air pollution. Non-traditional fuels must play a critical role
in the CMAQ program so that states can meet their clean air
responsibilities and at the same time, allow their citizens and their
economy the freedom to grow. Our amendment would capitalize on the
power of the private sector to provide innovations, like A-55, that
both same money and reduce emissions.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2400,
the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act (BESTEA).
In my district, and in the districts of many of my colleagues, the
rural highways that have served our nation since the mid-fifties are no
longer capable of serving the growing number of cars and trucks that
use them everyday. Additionally, many of these highways often prove to
be hazardous, and unable to meet the needs of the small towns and
growing economies that they serve. Adding to this problem is the fact
that more often than not rural highways are overlooked when upgrade
decisions are made in favor of major interstate projects that serve
large metropolitan cities
[[Page H1917]]
and constituencies. U.S. Rt. 30 that runs through my district is a
perfect example of this growing problem.
As a major east-west thoroughfare U.S. 30 is a integral trucking
route serving the northern half of Ohio between I-70 and the Ohio
Turnpike. Over the years this narrow two-lane stretch of highway has
logged a disturbing number of automotive accidents, which, when
combined with the increase in truck traffic and lack of sufficient
shoulder room, has all too often led to fatalities. With truck traffic
on this route up 11 percent since 1994, much of which can be attributed
to an increase state tolls elsewhere that forced many trucks to re-
route to rural thoroughfares like US 30, the need for a four-lane
upgrade has never been more critical. I support BESTEA because it will
give Ohio the needed resources and flexibility to bring much needed
relief to those who live along and drive U.S. Rt. 30.
Of great importance to me is the fact that Chairman Shuster' bill
finally provides equity for donor states like Ohio that have long
provided more revenue than they have received back in federal-aid
highway funds. By providing a true 95 percent return on contributions
to the Highway Trust Fund Ohio will be able to complete many projects
that have long been shelves due to lack of federal funding. Moreover,
by taking the Highway Trust Fund off-budget, BESTEA will restore the
integrity of the fund and provide all states with the transportation
funding their citizens have already contributed through gas taxes.
While in 1991 we made great strides in improving our transportation
system by passing ISTEA, in fact increasing Ohio's return from a meager
79 cents on the dollar to 87 cents, Today's BESTEA legislation will
significantly strengthen this commitment to our nations infrastructure
that we began many years ago.
Mr. Chairman, I applaud the Chairman of the Transportation Committee
for his leadership in bringing this important piece of legislation to
the House floor. I plan to support it and I look forward to its passage
so we can ensure that our nation has the best and most modern
transportation system in the world.
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, roads, bridges, transit, and trails all play
an important part in meeting the challenge of continuing to use
transportation to benefit the economy, environment, and quality of life
in all of our communities. Today's passage of H.R. 2400, the Building
Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act (BESTEA), means that
the critical infrastructure needs of the people in the 18th
Congressional District of Pennsylvania will be addressed in a
comprehensive manner.
The success of BESTEA is its preservation of the most progressive
components of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 (ISTEA). BESTEA continues to recognize and pay attention to,
creating and maintaining transportation systems which reflect both
environmental concerns and the needs of residents. BESTEA is a balanced
bill which meets the needs of road repair, bridge rehabilitation,
transit access, safety research, and pollution reduction.
Pennsylvania's overall network of 116,000 miles of highways and
streets is the largest of any eastern state with 44% of the state's
22,327 bridges in disrepair. The support provided by BESTEA not only
stimulates economic activity, but meets important safety concerns.
BESTEA also provides critical assistance in improving other aspects of
transportation that enhance the aesthetic of our local landscapes and
improve the quality of our air. I am pleased that CMAQ and Recreational
Trail Program funds were included in BESTEA.
It is important to note that BESTEA provides this critical assistance
to cities, towns, and neighborhoods across our country in a fiscally
responsible manner. As a strong balanced budget advocate, I am
supportive of the requirement that any spending increases in BESTEA
must be off-set. As a cosponsor of the Truth in Budgeting Act in both
the 104th and 105th Congress, I am pleased that BESTEA addresses a tax
fairness issue by moving the Highway Trust Fund ``off-budget''
beginning in FY 1999. Currently, with this fund ``on-budget'' the
surpluses are used to mask a portion of our true budget deficit and
prevents the funds from being used in the manner they were intended.
Without the critical support that BESTEA provides, countless
communities in the 18th Congressional District would have to stave off
undesirable consequences of poor infrastructure, rather than plan for
future development and growth. By improving our communities' mobility
we can directly benefit the quality of life and economic
competitiveness of our country. I am pleased to support H.R. 2400.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program. While the Building Efficient
Surface Transportation and Equity Act (BESTEA ) increases current IRR
funding levels to $212 million, I would urge the conferees to recede to
the Senate funding level for IRR of $250 million.
Funding for the IRR program is critical to the safety and,
ultimately, the health and welfare of Native American communities. The
current state of tribal infrastructure often consists of dirt roads
over which community members must travel for hundreds of miles to reach
the nearest hospital or school. Crumbling infrastructure does nothing
to induce safe travel to and from community resources, and speaks
poorly of our nation's regard for the treaties, relationships, and
prioritization of Native Americans needs.
The Senate funding level for IRR of $250 million is a modest but
necessary increase, and I urge my colleagues to respect the call for
desperately needed resources.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
printed in the bill, modified by the amendment recommended by the
Committee on Ways and Means printed in the bill, and the amendment
printed in Part I of House Report 105-476, shall be considered as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and
shall be considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute,
modified by the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and
Means now printed in the bill and the amendment printed in Part I of
House Report 105-476 is as follows:
H.R. 2400
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 ``Building
Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of 1998''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Savings clause.
TITLE I--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS
Sec. 101. Amendments to title 23, United States Code.
Sec. 102. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 103. Obligation ceiling.
Sec. 104. Apportionments.
Sec. 105. Interstate maintenance program.
Sec. 106. National Highway System.
Sec. 107. Highway bridge program.
Sec. 108. Surface transportation program.
Sec. 109. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program.
Sec. 110. High risk road safety improvement program.
Sec. 111. Minimum allocation.
Sec. 112. Appalachian Development Highway System.
Sec. 113. High cost Interstate System reconstruction and improvement
program.
Sec. 114. Recreational trails program.
Sec. 115. National corridor planning and development program.
Sec. 116. Coordinated border infrastructure and safety program.
Sec. 117. Federal lands highways program.
Sec. 118. National scenic byways program.
Sec. 119. Variable pricing pilot program.
Sec. 120. Toll roads, bridges, and tunnels.
Sec. 121. Construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.
Sec. 122. Highway use tax evasion projects.
Sec. 123. Performance bonus program.
Sec. 124. Metropolitan planning.
Sec. 125. Statewide planning.
Sec. 126. Roadside safety technologies.
Sec. 127. Discretionary program authorizations.
Sec. 128. Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge.
Sec. 129. Training.
Sec. 130. Transportation assistance for Olympic cities.
Sec. 131. National Defense Highways.
Sec. 132. Miscellaneous surface transportation programs.
Sec. 133. Eligibility.
Sec. 134. Fiscal, administrative, and other amendments.
Sec. 135. Access of motorcycles.
Sec. 136. Amendments to prior surface transportation authorization
laws.
Sec. 137. Bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways.
Sec. 138. Hazard elimination program.
Sec. 139. Project administration.
Sec. 140. Contracting for engineering and design services.
Sec. 141. Commercial motor vehicle study.
Sec. 142. New York Avenue Transportation Development Authority.
Sec. 143. Definitions.
TITLE II--HIGHWAY SAFETY
Sec. 201. Amendments to title 23, United States Code.
Sec. 202. Highway safety programs.
Sec. 203. Highway safety research and development.
Sec. 204. Occupant protection incentive grants.
Sec. 205. Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures.
Sec. 206. State highway safety data improvements.
Sec. 207. National Driver Register.
Sec. 208. Safety studies.
Sec. 209. Effectiveness of laws establishing maximum blood alcohol
concentrations.
[[Page H1918]]
Sec. 210. Authorizations of appropriations.
Sec. 211. Transportation injury research.
TITLE III--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS
Sec. 301. Amendments to title 49, United States Code.
Sec. 302. Definitions.
Sec. 303. Metropolitan planning.
Sec. 304. Transportation improvement program.
Sec. 305. Transportation management areas.
Sec. 306. Urbanized area formula grants.
Sec. 307. Mass Transit Account block grants.
Sec. 308. Capital program grants and loans.
Sec. 309. Dollar value of mobility improvements.
Sec. 310. Formula grants and loans for special needs of elderly
individuals and individuals with disabilities.
Sec. 311. Formula program for other than urbanized areas.
Sec. 312. Research, development, demonstration, and training projects.
Sec. 313. National planning and research programs.
Sec. 314. National transit institute.
Sec. 315. University research institutes.
Sec. 316. Transportation centers.
Sec. 317. Bus testing facilities.
Sec. 318. Bicycle facilities.
Sec. 319. General provisions on assistance.
Sec. 320. Contract requirements.
Sec. 321. Special procurements.
Sec. 322. Project management oversight and review.
Sec. 323. Study on alcohol and controlled substances random testing
rate calculation.
Sec. 324. Administrative procedures.
Sec. 325. Reports and audits.
Sec. 326. Apportionment of appropriations for formula grants.
Sec. 327. Apportionment of appropriations for fixed guideway
modernization.
Sec. 328. Authorizations.
Sec. 329. Obligation ceiling.
Sec. 330. Access to jobs challenge grant pilot program.
Sec. 331. Adjustments for the Surface Transportation Extension Act of
1997.
Sec. 332. Projects for new fixed guideway systems and extensions to
existing systems.
Sec. 333. Projects for bus and bus-related facilities.
Sec. 334. Project management oversight.
Sec. 335. Privatization.
Sec. 336. School transportation safety.
Sec. 337. Urbanized area formula study.
Sec. 338. Coordinated transportation services.
Sec. 339. Final assembly of buses.
TITLE IV--MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
Sec. 401. Amendments to title 49, United States Code.
Sec. 402. State grants.
Sec. 403. Information systems.
Sec. 404. Automobile transporter defined.
Sec. 405. Inspections and reports.
Sec. 406. Exemptions and pilot programs.
Sec. 407. Safety regulation.
Sec. 408. Improved interstate school bus safety.
Sec. 409. Repeal of certain obsolete miscellaneous authorities.
Sec. 410. Commercial vehicle operators.
Sec. 411. Interim border safety improvement program.
Sec. 412. Vehicle weight enforcement.
Sec. 413. Participation in international registration plan and
international fuel tax agreement.
Sec. 414. Telephone hotline for reporting safety violations.
Sec. 415. Insulin treated diabetes mellitus.
Sec. 416. Performance-based CDL testing.
Sec. 417. Postaccident alcohol testing.
Sec. 418. Driver fatigue.
Sec. 419. Safety fitness.
Sec. 420. Hazardous materials transportation regulation and farm
service vehicles.
Sec. 421. Truck trailer conspicuity.
Sec. 422. DOT implementation plan.
TITLE V--PROGRAMMATIC REFORMS AND STREAMLINING
Sec. 501. Project approval and oversight.
Sec. 502. Environmental streamlining.
Sec. 503. Major investment study integration.
Sec. 504. Financial plan.
Sec. 505. Uniform transferability of Federal-aid highway funds.
Sec. 506. Discretionary grant selection criteria and process.
Sec. 507. Elimination of regional office responsibilities.
Sec. 508. Authority for Congress to make midcourse corrections to the
highway and transit programs.
TITLE VI--TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
Sec. 601. Amendments to title 23, United States Code.
Sec. 602. Applicability of title 23.
Sec. 603. Transfers of funds.
Subtitle A--Surface Transportation Research, Technology, and Education
Part I--Highway Research
Sec. 611. Research.
Sec. 612. State planning and research.
Sec. 613. International highway transportation outreach program.
Part II--Transportation Education, Professional Training, and
Technology Deployment
Sec. 621. National Highway Institute.
Sec. 622. National technology deployment initiative.
Sec. 623. Education and training programs.
Sec. 624. University transportation research.
Sec. 625. Funding allocations.
Part III--Bureau of Transportation Statistics and Miscellaneous
Programs
Sec. 631. Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
Sec. 632. Transportation technology innovation and demonstration
program.
Subtitle B--Intelligent Transportation Systems
Sec. 651. Definitions.
Sec. 652. Scope of program.
Sec. 653. General authorities and requirements.
Sec. 654. National ITS program plan.
Sec. 655. Technical assistance, planning, research, and operational
tests.
Sec. 656. ITS deployment.
Sec. 657. Funding allocations.
Sec. 658. Global positioning satellite data.
Sec. 659. Repeal.
TITLE VII--TRUTH IN BUDGETING
Sec. 701. Budgetary treatment of Highway Trust Fund.
Sec. 702. Applicability.
TITLE VIII--RECREATIONAL BOATING SAFETY PROGRAM
Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Amendments relating to recreational boating safety program.
TITLE IX--RAILROADS
Sec. 901. High-speed rail.
Sec. 902. Light density rail line pilot projects.
Sec. 903. Miami-Orlando-Tampa corridor project.
Sec. 904. Alaska Railroad.
Sec. 905. Railway-highway crossing hazard elimination in high speed
rail corridors.
Sec. 906. Railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing.
TITLE X--CONDITIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF FUNDING
Sec. 1001. Conditions for implementation of funding.
TITLE XI--REVENUES
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions apply:
(1) Interstate system.--The term ``Interstate System'' has
the meaning such term has under section 101 of title 23,
United States Code.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Transportation.
SEC. 3. SAVINGS CLAUSE.
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, an amendment made
by this Act shall not affect any funds apportioned or
allocated before the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE I--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS
SEC. 101. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 23, UNITED STATES CODE.
Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this
title and title V an amendment or repeal is expressed in
terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other
provision of law, the reference shall be considered to be
made to a section or other provision of title 23, United
States Code.
SEC. 102. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--The following sums are authorized to be
appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the
Mass Transit Account):
(1) Interstate maintenance program.--For the Interstate
maintenance program under section 119 of title 23, United
States Code, $4,019,500,000 for fiscal year 1998,
$4,462,600,000 for fiscal year 1999, and $5,006,200,000 for
each of fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
(2) National highway system.--For the National Highway
System under section 103 of such title $4,978,500,000 for
fiscal year 1998, $5,520,500,000 for fiscal year 1999, and
$6,186,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
(3) Bridge program.--For the bridge program under section
144 of such title $3,777,600,000 for fiscal year 1998,
$4,194,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, and $4,704,800,000 for
each of fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
(4) Surface transportation program.--For the surface
transportation program under section 133 of such title
$5,601,400,000 for fiscal year 1998, $6,218,900,000 for
fiscal year 1999, and $6,976,300,000 for each of fiscal years
2000 through 2003.
(5) Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement
program.--For the congestion mitigation and air quality
improvement program under section 149 of such title
$1,406,800,000 for fiscal year 1998, $1,561,900,000 for
fiscal year 1999, and $1,752,200,000 for each of fiscal years
2000 through 2003.
(6) High risk road safety improvement program.--For the
high risk road safety improvement program under section 154
of such title $750,000,000 for fiscal year 1998,
$1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, and $1,000,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
(7) High cost interstate system reconstruction and
improvement program.--For the high cost Interstate System
reconstruction and improvement program under section 160 of
such title $265,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $512,500,000
for fiscal year 1999, $920,000,000 for fiscal year 2000,
$923,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $922,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002, and $1,067,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(8) Discretionary programs.--For executive and legislative
branch discretionary programs referred to in section 127 of
this Act (including amendments made by such section)
$1,622,400,000 for fiscal year 1998, $2,215,300,000 for
fiscal year 1999, $2,563,600,000 for fiscal year 2000,
$2,563,600,000 for fiscal year 2001, $2,657,600,000 for
fiscal year 2002, and $2,657,600,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(9) Appalachian development highway system program.--For
the Appalachian development highway system program under
section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of
1965 (40 U.S.C. App.) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 1998,
$400,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, and $400,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
(10) Recreational trails program.--For the recreational
trails program under section 206 of
[[Page H1919]]
such title $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $40,000,000 for
fiscal year 1999, and $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2000 through 2003.
(11) Federal lands highways program.--
(A) Indian reservation roads.--For Indian reservation roads
under section 204 of such title $194,000,000 for fiscal year
1998, $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, and $212,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
(B) Public lands highways.--For public lands highways under
section 204 of such title $58,000,000 for fiscal year 1998,
$60,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, and $60,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
(C) Parkways and park highways.--For parkways and park
highways under section 204 of such title $85,300,000 for
fiscal year 1998, $86,200,000 for fiscal year 1999, and
$99,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
(D) Forest highways.--For forest highways under section 204
of such title $113,500,000 for fiscal year 1998, $130,000,000
for fiscal year 1999, and $130,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2000 through 2003.
(12) Highway use tax evasion projects.--For highway use tax
evasion projects under section 1040 of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 101 note;
105 Stat. 1992) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 and
$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
(b) Disadvantaged Business Enterprises.--
(1) General rule.--Except to the extent that the Secretary
determines otherwise, not less than 10 percent of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated under titles I, III, and VI of
this Act shall be expended with small business concerns owned
and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals.
(2) Compliance with court orders.--Nothing in this section
limits the eligibility of an entity or person to receive
funds made available under titles I, III, and VI of this Act,
if the entity or person is prevented, in whole or in part,
from complying with paragraph (1) because a Federal court
issues a final order in which the court finds that the
requirement of paragraph (1), or the program established
under paragraph (1), is unconstitutional.
(3) Review by comptroller general.--Not later than 3 years
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller
General of the United States shall conduct a review of, and
publish and report to Congress findings and conclusions on,
the impact throughout the United States of administering the
requirement of paragraph (1), including an analysis of--
(A) in the case of small business concerns owned and
controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals--
(i) the number of the small business concerns; and
(ii) the participation rates of the small business concerns
in prime contracts and subcontracts funded under titles I,
III, and VI of this Act;
(B) in the case of small business concerns described in
subparagraph (A) that receive prime contracts and
subcontracts funded under titles I, III, and VI of this Act--
(i) the number of the small business concerns;
(ii) the annual gross receipts of the small business
concerns; and
(iii) the net worth of socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals that own and control the small
business concerns;
(C) in the case of small business concerns described in
subparagraph (A) that do not receive prime contracts and
subcontracts funded under titles I, III, and VI of this Act--
(i) the annual gross receipts of the small business
concerns; and
(ii) the net worth of socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals that own and control the small
business concerns;
(D) in the case of business concerns that receive prime
contracts and subcontracts funded under titles I, III, and VI
of this Act, other than small business concerns described in
subparagraph (B)--
(i) the annual gross receipts of the business concerns; and
(ii) the net worth of individuals that own and control the
business concerns;
(E) the rate of graduation from any programs carried out to
comply with the requirement of paragraph (1) for small
business concerns owned and controlled by socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals;
(F) the overall cost of administering the requirement of
paragraph (1), including administrative costs, certification
costs, additional construction costs, and litigation costs;
(G) any discrimination, on the basis of race, color,
national origin, or sex, against small business concerns
owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals;
(H)(i) any other factors limiting the ability of small
business concerns owned and controlled by socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals to compete for prime
contracts and subcontracts funded under titles I, III, and VI
of this Act; and
(ii) the extent to which any of those factors are caused,
in whole or in part, by discrimination based on race, color,
national origin, or sex;
(I) any discrimination, on the basis of race, color,
national origin, or sex, against construction companies owned
and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals in public and private transportation contracting
and the financial, credit, insurance, and bond markets;
(J) the impact on small business concerns owned and
controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals of--
(i) the issuance of a final order described in paragraph
(2) by a Federal court that suspends a program established
under paragraph (1); or
(ii) the repeal or suspension of State or local
disadvantaged business enterprise programs; and
(K) the impact of the requirement of paragraph (1), and any
program carried out to comply with paragraph (1), on
competition and the creation of jobs, including the creation
of jobs for socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals.
(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the
following definitions apply:
(A) Small business concern.--The term ``small business
concern'' has the meaning such term has under section 3 of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632); except that such term
shall not include any concern or group of concerns controlled
by the same socially and economically disadvantaged
individual or individuals which has average annual gross
receipts over the preceding 3 fiscal years in excess of
$16,600,000, as adjusted by the Secretary for inflation.
(B) Socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.--
The term ``socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals'' has the meaning such term has under section
8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) and
relevant subcontracting regulations promulgated pursuant
thereto; except that women shall be presumed to be socially
and economically disadvantaged individuals for purposes of
this subsection.
SEC. 103. OBLIGATION CEILING.
(a) General Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the total of all obligations for Federal-
aid highway programs shall not exceed--
(1) $21,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
(2) $25,300,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
(3) $28,400,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through
2003.
(b) Exceptions.--The limitations under subsection (a) shall
not apply to obligations--
(1) under section 125 of title 23, United States Code;
(2) under section 157 of such title;
(3) under section 147 of the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1978;
(4) under section 9 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981;
(5) under sections 131(b) and 131(j) of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982;
(6) under sections 149(b) and 149(c) of the Surface
Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987;
(7) under sections 1103 through 1108 of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; and
(8) under section 104(j) of title 23, United States Code,
relating to high priority projects.
(c) Distribution of Obligation Authority.--For each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003, the Secretary shall--
(1) not distribute amounts authorized for administrative
expenses and programs funded from the administrative takedown
authorized by section 104(a) of title 23, United States Code,
and amounts authorized for the highway use tax evasion
program and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics;
(2) determine the ratio that--
(A) the obligation limitation imposed by subsection (a) for
such fiscal year less the aggregate of amounts not
distributed under paragraph (1), bears to
(B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for
Federal-aid highway programs (other than sums authorized to
be appropriated for sections referred to in subsection (b))
for such fiscal year less the aggregate of amounts not
distributed under paragraph (1);
(3)(A) multiply the ratio determined under paragraph (2) by
the sums authorized to be appropriated for such fiscal year
for each of the programs that are allocated by the Secretary
under this Act and title 23, United States Code (other than
the recreational trails program and programs to which
paragraph (1) applies);
(B) not distribute such amount for each such program (other
than the recreational trails program and programs to which
paragraph (1) applies); and
(C) in administering such program, allocate such amount for
such program;
(4) distribute the obligation limitation imposed by
subsection (a) less the aggregate of amounts not distributed
under paragraphs (1) and (3) and less amounts distributed
under paragraph (5) by allocation in the ratio which sums
authorized to be appropriated for Federal-aid highway
programs that are apportioned or allocated to each State for
such fiscal year and that are subject to the limitation
imposed by subsection (a) bear to the total of the sums
authorized to be appropriated for Federal-aid highway
programs that are apportioned or allocated for such fiscal
year and that are subject to the limitation imposed by
subsection (a); and
(5) distribute any amount determined under paragraph (3)
for the recreational trails program in accordance with the
formula set forth in section 104(h) of title 23, United
States Code, for such program.
(d) Redistribution of Unused Obligation Authority.--
Notwithstanding subsection (c), the Secretary shall--
(1) provide all States with authority sufficient to prevent
lapses of sums authorized to be appropriated for Federal-aid
highway programs that have been apportioned to a State; and
(2) after August 1 of each of fiscal years 1998 through
2003 revise a distribution of the obligation authority made
available under subsection (c) if a State will not obligate
the amount distributed during that fiscal year and
redistribute sufficient amounts to those States able to
obligate amounts in addition to those previously distributed
during that fiscal year giving priority to those States
having large unobligated balances of funds apportioned under
sections 104 and 144 of title 23, United States Code, under
section 160 of title 23, United States Code (as in effect on
the day before the date of the enactment of this Act), and
under section 1015 of the
[[Page H1920]]
Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (105 Stat.
1943-1945).
(e) Applicability of Obligation Limitations to
Transportation Research Programs.--Obligation limitations for
Federal-aid highways programs established by subsection (a)
shall apply to transportation research programs carried out
under chapter 3 of title 23, United States Code, and under
title VI of this Act.
(f) Redistribution of Certain Authorized Funds.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the distribution of obligation authority under subsection (a)
for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003, the Secretary
shall distribute to the States any funds (A) that are
authorized to be appropriated for such fiscal year for
Federal-aid highway programs (other than the program under
section 160 of title 23, United States Code) and for carrying
out subchapter I of chapter 311 of title 49, United States
Code, and chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code, and (B)
that the Secretary determines will not be allocated to the
States, and will not be available for obligation, in such
fiscal year due to the imposition of any obligation
limitation for such fiscal year. Such distribution to the
States shall be made in the same ratio as the distribution of
obligation authority under subsection (c)(5). The funds so
distributed shall be available for any purposes described in
section 133(b) of title 23, United States Code.
(2) High cost interstate system reconstruction and
improvement program funds.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of the distribution of obligation authority under
subsection (c) for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003,
the Secretary shall distribute to the States any funds that
are authorized to be appropriated for such fiscal year to
carry out the high cost Interstate System reconstruction and
improvement program under section 160 of title 23, United
States Code, and that will not be available for obligation in
such fiscal year due to the imposition of any obligation
limitation for such fiscal year. Such distribution to the
States shall be made in the same ratio as funds are
apportioned under section 104(b)(5) of such title. The funds
so distributed to a State shall be credited to the State's
apportionment under such section 104(b)(5).
SEC. 104. APPORTIONMENTS.
(a) Administrative Takedown.--Section 104(a) is amended to
read as follows:
``(a) Administrative Takedown.--Whenever an apportionment
is made of the sums authorized to be appropriated for
expenditure on Interstate maintenance, the National Highway
System, the bridge program, the surface transportation
program, the congestion mitigation and air quality
improvement program, the high risk road safety program, the
high cost Interstate System reconstruction and improvement
program, the national corridor planning and development
program, the border infrastructure and safety program, and
the Federal lands highways program, the Secretary shall
deduct a sum, in such amount not to exceed 1 percent of all
sums so authorized, as the Secretary may deem necessary for
administering the provisions of law to be financed from
appropriations for the Federal-aid highway program. In making
such determination, the Secretary shall take into account the
unobligated balance of any sums deducted for such purposes in
prior years. The sums so deducted shall remain available
until expended. The Secretary may not transfer any of such
sums to a Federal entity other than the Federal Highway
Administration.''.
(b) Apportionments.--Section 104(b) is amended to read as
follows:
``(b) Apportionments.--On October 1 of each fiscal year,
the Secretary, after making the deduction authorized by
subsection (a) and the set-aside authorized by subsection
(f), shall apportion the remainder of the sums authorized to
be appropriated for expenditure on Interstate maintenance,
the National Highway System, the surface transportation
program, the congestion mitigation and air quality
improvement program, and the high risk road safety program
for that fiscal year, among the several States in the
following manner:
``(1) National highway system.--For the National Highway
System, 1 percent to the Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
and the remaining 99 percent apportioned as follows:
``(A) In the case of a State with an average population
density of 20 persons or fewer per square mile, and in the
case of a State with a population of 1,500,000 persons or
fewer and with a land area of 10,000 square miles or less,
the greater of--
``(i) a percentage share of the remaining apportionments
equal to the percentage specified for the State in section
104(h)(1) of the Building Efficient Surface Transportation
and Equity Act of 1998; or
``(ii) a share determined under subparagraph (B).
``(B) Subject to subparagraph (A), in the case of any State
for which the apportionment is not determined under
subparagraph (A)(i), a share of the remaining apportionments
determined in accordance with the following formula:
``(i) \1/9\ of the remaining apportionments in the ratio
that the total rural lane miles in each State bears to the
total rural lane miles in all States for which the
apportionment is not determined under subparagraph (A)(i).
``(ii) \1/9\ of the remaining apportionments in the ratio
that the total rural vehicle miles traveled in each State
bears to the total rural vehicle miles traveled in all States
for which the apportionment is not determined under
subparagraph (A)(i).
``(iii) \2/9\ of the remaining apportionments in the ratio
that the total urban lane miles in each State bears to the
total urban lane miles in all States for which the
apportionment is not determined under subparagraph (A)(i).
``(iv) \2/9\ of the remaining apportionments in the ratio
that the total urban vehicle miles traveled in each State
bears to the total urban vehicle miles traveled in all States
for which the apportionment is not determined under
subparagraph (A)(i).
``(v) \3/9\ of the remaining apportionments in the ratio
that each State's annual contributions to the Highway Trust
Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) attributable to
commercial vehicles bear to the total of such annual
contributions by all States for which the apportionment is
not determined under subparagraph (A)(i).
``(2) Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement
program.--
``(A) Formula.--For the congestion mitigation and air
quality improvement program, in the ratio which the weighted
nonattainment and maintenance area populations of each State
bear to the total weighted nonattainment and maintenance area
population of all States.
``(B) Calculation of weighted population.--Such weighted
population shall be calculated by multiplying the population
of each area within any State that was a nonattainment or
maintenance area as described in subsection 149(b) for ozone,
carbon monoxide, or particulate matter by a factor of--
``(i) 1.0 if, at the time of the apportionment, the area
has been redesignated as an attainment (maintenance) area
under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act;
``(ii) 1.1 if, at the time of apportionment, the area is
classified as a marginal ozone nonattainment area under
subpart 2 of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act;
``(iii) 1.2 if, at the time of apportionment, the area is
classified as a moderate ozone nonattainment area under such
subpart;
``(iv) 1.3 if, at the time of apportionment, the area is
classified as a serious ozone nonattainment area under such
subpart;
``(v) 1.4 if, at the time of apportionment, the area is
classified as a severe ozone nonattainment area under such
subpart;
``(vi) 1.5 if, at the time of apportionment, the area is
classified as an extreme ozone nonattainment area under such
subpart; or
``(vii) 1.2. if, at the time of apportionment, the area is
not a nonattainment or maintenance area as described in
subsection 149(b) of this title for ozone, but is a
nonattainment area for carbon monoxide or particulate matter.
``(C) Additional factors.--If the area was also classified
under subpart 3 or 4 of part D of title I of the Clean Air
Act as a nonattainment area described in section 149(b) for
carbon monoxide or particulate matter or both, the weighted
nonattainment area population of the area, as determined
under clauses (i) through (vi) of subparagraph (B), shall be
further multiplied by a factor of 1.2. For an area that is a
nonattainment area for both carbon monoxide and for
particulate matter and the area's weighted population was
determined under clause (vii) of subparagraph (B), the area's
weighted population shall be further multiplied by a factor
of 1.2. For such areas, the population to which this factor
is applied shall be the larger of the carbon monoxide and the
particulate matter nonattainment area populations.
``(D) Minimum apportionment.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this paragraph, each State shall receive a
minimum of \1/2\ of 1 percent of the funds apportioned under
this paragraph. The Secretary shall use annual estimates
prepared by the Secretary of Commerce when determining
population figures.
``(3) Surface transportation program.--
``(A) In general.--For the surface transportation program,
2 percent to the State of Alaska for any purpose described in
section 133(b) and the remaining 98 percent apportioned as
follows:
``(i) \1/3\ in the ratio that each State's total population
bears to the total population of all States, using the latest
available annual updates to the Federal decennial census, as
prepared by the Secretary of Commerce.
``(ii) \1/3\ in the ratio that each State's annual
contributions to the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account) attributable to commercial vehicles bear to
the total of such annual contributions by all States.
``(iii) \1/3\ in the ratio that each State's annual
contributions to the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account) bear to the total of such annual
contributions by all States.
``(B) Adjustment.--The amount of funds which, but for this
subparagraph, would be apportioned to each State for each
fiscal year under subparagraph (A) shall be increased or
decreased by an amount which, when added to or subtracted
from the aggregate amount of funds apportioned or allocated
to such State for such fiscal year for Interstate
maintenance, National Highway System, surface transportation
program, bridge program, congestion mitigation and air
quality improvement program, high risk road safety program,
recreational trails program, Appalachian Development Highway
System program, and metropolitan planning will ensure that
the aggregate of such apportionments to any State that does
not contribute to the Highway Trust Fund does not exceed the
aggregate of such apportionments to any State that does
contribute to the Highway Trust Fund.
``(4) High risk road safety improvement program.--For the
high risk road safety improvement program--
``(A) \1/3\ in the ratio that each State's total population
bears to the total population of all States, using the latest
available annual updates to the Federal decennial census, as
prepared by the Secretary of Commerce;
``(B) \1/3\ in the ratio that each State's total public
road mileage bears to the total public road mileage of all
States; and
``(C) \1/3\ in the ratio that the total vehicle miles
traveled on public roads in each State bear to
[[Page H1921]]
the total vehicle miles traveled on public roads in all
States.
``(5) Interstate maintenance.--For resurfacing, restoring,
rehabilitating, and reconstructing the Interstate System--
``(A) \1/3\ in the ratio that each State's annual
contributions to the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account) attributable to commercial vehicles bear to
the total of such annual contributions by all States;
``(B) \1/3\ in the ratio that the total vehicle miles
traveled on Interstate routes open to traffic in each State
bear to the total vehicle miles traveled on such routes in
all States; and
``(C) \1/3\ in the ratio that the total lane miles on such
routes in each State bear to the total lane miles on such
routes in all States.''.
(c) Operation Lifesaver and High Speed Rail Corridors.--
Section 104(d) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``$300,000'' and inserting
``$500,000'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(A) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and
inserting ``$5,250,000''; and
(3) by adding at the end of paragraph (2)(A) the following:
``Not less than $250,000 of such set-aside shall be available
per fiscal year for eligible improvements to the Minneapolis/
St. Paul-Chicago segment of the Midwest High Speed Rail
Corridor.''.
(d) Certification of Apportionments.--Section 104(e) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``Certification of Apportionments.--''
after ``(e)'';
(2) by inserting ``(1) In general.--'' before ``On October
1'';
(3) by striking the first parenthetical phrase;
(4) by striking ``and research'' the first place it
appears;
(5) by striking the second sentence;
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Notice to states.--If the Secretary has not made an
apportionment under section 104, 144, or 157 of title 23,
United States Code, on or before the 21st of a fiscal year,
then the Secretary shall transmit, on or before such 21st
day, to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate a written statement of the
reason for not making such apportionment in a timely
manner.''; and
(7) by indenting paragraph (1), as designated by paragraph
(2) of this subsection, and aligning such paragraph (1) with
paragraph (2) of such section, as added by paragraph (6) of
this subsection.
(e) Metropolitan Planning Set-Aside.--Section 104(f) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``Interstate construction
and Interstate substitute programs'' and inserting
``recreational trails program''; and
(2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``120(j) of this title''
and inserting ``120(b)''.
(f) Recreational Trails Program.--Section 104(h) of such
title is amended to read as follows:
``(h) Recreational Trails Program.--
``(1) Administrative costs.--Whenever an apportionment is
made of the sums authorized to be appropriated to carry out
the recreational trails program under section 206, the
Secretary shall deduct an amount, not to exceed 3 percent of
the sums authorized, to cover the cost to the Secretary for
administration of and research and technical assistance under
the recreational trails program and for administration of the
National Recreational Trails Advisory Committee. The
Secretary may enter into contracts with for-profit
organizations or contracts, partnerships, or cooperative
agreements with other government agencies, institutions of
higher learning, or nonprofit organizations to perform these
tasks.
``(2) Apportionment to the states.--After making the
deduction authorized by paragraph (1) of this subsection, the
Secretary shall apportion the remainder of the sums
authorized to be appropriated for expenditure on the
recreational trails program for each fiscal year, among the
States in the following manner:
``(A) 50 percent of that amount shall be apportioned
equally among eligible States.
``(B) 50 percent of that amount shall be apportioned among
eligible States in amounts proportionate to the degree of
non-highway recreational fuel use in each of those States
during the preceding year.''.
(g) Cross Reference Corrections.--
(1) Interstate maintenance program.--Subsections (a), (d),
and (f) of section 119 are each amended by striking
``104(b)(5)(B)'' each place it appears and inserting
``104(b)(5)''.
(2) Fringe and corridor parking facilities.--Section
137(f)(1) is amended by striking ``section 104(b)(5)(B) of
this title'' and inserting ``section 104(b)(5)''.
(3) Additions to interstate system.--Section 139 is amended
by striking ``section 104(b)(5)(B) of this title'' each place
it appears and inserting ``section 104(b)(5)''.
(4) Accommodation of other modes.--Section 142(c) is
amended by striking ``section 104(b)(5)(A)'' and inserting
``section 104(b)(5)''.
(5) Minimum drinking ages.--Section 158 is amended--
(A) by striking ``104(b)(2), 104(b)(5), and 104(b)(6)''
each place it appears in subsection (a) and inserting
``104(b)(3), and 104(b)(5)'';
(B) in the heading to subsection (b) is amended by striking
``Period of Availability;''; and
(C) in subsection (b)--
(i) by striking ``(1)'' the first place it appears and all
that follows through ``No funds'' and inserting ``No funds'';
and
(ii) by striking paragraphs (2), (3), and (4).
(6) Suspension of licenses of individuals convicted of drug
offenses.--Section 159(b) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Period of Availability;'' in the
subsection heading; and
(B) by striking ``(1)'' the first place it appears and all
that follows through ``No funds'' and inserting ``No funds'';
and
(C) by striking paragraphs (2), (3), and (4).
(7) Operation of motor vehicles by intoxicated minors.--
Section 161(a) is amended by striking ``(B)'' each place it
appears.
(h) State Percentages for National Highway System
Apportionments.--
(1) In general.--The percentage referred to in section
104(b)(1) of title 23, United States Code, for each State
shall be determined in accordance with the following table:
States: Adjustment percentage
Alabama.........................................................2.02
Alaska..........................................................1.24
Arizona.........................................................1.68
Arkansas........................................................1.32
California......................................................9.81
Colorado........................................................1.23
Connecticut.....................................................1.64
Delaware........................................................0.40
District of Columbia............................................0.52
Florida.........................................................4.77
Georgia.........................................................3.60
Hawaii..........................................................0.70
Idaho...........................................................0.70
Illinois........................................................3.71
Indiana.........................................................2.63
Iowa............................................................1.13
Kansas..........................................................1.10
Kentucky........................................................1.91
Louisiana.......................................................1.63
Maine...........................................................0.50
Maryland........................................................1.64
Massachusetts...................................................1.68
Michigan........................................................3.34
Minnesota.......................................................1.56
Mississippi.....................................................1.23
Missouri........................................................2.45
Montana.........................................................0.95
Nebraska........................................................0.73
Nevada..........................................................0.67
New Hampshire...................................................0.48
New Jersey......................................................2.28
New Mexico......................................................1.05
New York........................................................4.27
North Carolina..................................................2.83
North Dakota....................................................0.76
Ohio............................................................3.77
Oklahoma........................................................1.55
Oregon..........................................................1.23
Pennsylvania....................................................4.12
Puerto Rico.....................................................0.50
Rhode Island....................................................0.55
South Carolina..................................................1.63
South Dakota....................................................0.70
Tennessee.......................................................2.30
Texas...........................................................7.21
Utah............................................................0.71
Vermont.........................................................0.43
Virginia........................................................2.61
Washington......................................................1.75
West Virginia...................................................0.76
Wisconsin.......................................................1.91
Wyoming.........................................................0.66.
(2) Additional rule.--Any State with lane miles on the
National Highway System totaling between 3,500 and 4,000
miles shall be treated as a State meeting the requirements
of section 104(b)(1)(A) of title 23, United States Code,
for purposes of such section.
(i) Use of Most Up-to-Date Data.--The Secretary shall use
the most up-to-date data available for the latest fiscal year
for the purposes of making apportionments under this section
and section 157 of title 23, United States Code.
(j) Adjustments for the Surface Transportation Extension
Act of 1997.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
and subject to section 2(c) of the Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 1997, the Secretary shall ensure that the
total apportionments for a State for fiscal year 1998 made
under the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and
Equity Act of 1998 (including amendments made by such Act)
shall be reduced by the amount apportioned to such State
under section 1003(d)(1) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
(2) Repayment of transferred funds.--The Secretary shall
ensure that any apportionments made to a State for fiscal
year 1998 and adjusted under paragraph (1) shall first be
used to restore in accordance with section 3(c) of the
Surface Transportation Extension Act of 1997 any funds that a
State transferred under section 3 of such Act.
(3) Insufficient funds for repayment.--If a State has
insufficient funds apportioned in fiscal year 1998 under the
Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of
1998 (including amendments made by such Act) to make the
adjustment required by paragraph (1), then the Secretary
shall make an adjustment to any funds apportioned to such
State in fiscal year 1999.
(4) Allocated programs.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, amounts made available for fiscal year 1998
by the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity
Act of 1998 (including amendments made by such Act) for a
program that is continued by both of sections 4, 5, 6, and 7
of the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 1997
(including amendments made by such sections) and the Building
Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of 1998
(including amendments made by such Act) shall be reduced by
the amount made available by such sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 for
such programs.
SEC. 105. INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM.
Section 119 is further amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``and rehabilitating'' and inserting ``,
rehabilitating, and reconstructing'';
(B) by striking ``of this title and'' and inserting a
comma;
(C) by striking ``this sentence'' and inserting ``the
Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of
1998'';
[[Page H1922]]
(D) by striking ``of this title;'' and inserting ``, and
any segments that become part of the Interstate System under
section 1105(e)(5) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991;''; and
(E) by striking ``subsection (e)'' and inserting ``section
129 or continued in effect by section 1012(d) of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and
not voided by the Secretary under section 120(c) of the
Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act
of 1987 (101 Stat. 159)'';
(2) by striking subsections (b), (c), and (e); and
(3) by redesignating subsections (d), (f), and (g) as
subsections (b), (c), and (d), respectively.
SEC. 106. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.
(a) Components.--Section 103(b) is amended--
(1) by striking the last 4 sentences of paragraph (2)(B);
(2) in paragraph (2)(C) by striking ``and be subject to
approval by Congress in accordance with paragraph (3)''; and
(3) in paragraph (2)(D) by striking ``and subject to
approval by Congress in accordance with paragraph (3)''.
(b) Maximum Mileage.--Section 103(b) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4) and inserting the
following:
``(3) Maximum mileage.--The mileage of highways on the
National Highway System shall not exceed 155,000 miles;
except that the Secretary may increase or decrease such
maximum mileage by not to exceed 15 percent.''; and
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively.
(c) Designation.--Section 103(b)(4), as so redesignated by
subsection (b)(2) of this section, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(A) Basic system.--'' before ``The
National'';
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (A), as so designated
by paragraph (1) of this subsection, the following:
``(B) Intermodal connectors.--The modifications to the
National Highway System that consist of highway connections
to major ports, airports, international border crossings,
public transportation and transit facilities, interstate bus
terminals, and rail and other intermodal transportation
facilities, as submitted to Congress by the Secretary on the
map dated May 24, 1996, are designated within the United
States, including the District of Columbia and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.''; and
(3) by indenting such subparagraph (A) and aligning it with
subparagraph (B), as inserted by paragraph (2) of this
subsection.
(d) Modifications.--Section 103(b)(5)(A), as redesignated
by subsection (b)(2) of this section, is amended by inserting
``or, in the case of the strategic highway network, that are
proposed by the Secretary in consultation with appropriate
Federal agencies and the States'' before ``if the
Secretary''.
(e) Conforming Amendments.--Section 103(b) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), as redesignated by subsection (b)(2)
of this section, by striking ``Subject to paragraph (7),
the'' and inserting ``The'';
(2) by striking paragraph (7);
(3) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (6); and
(4) in paragraph (6), as so redesignated, by striking
``paragraph (5)'' and inserting ``paragraph (4)''.
(f) Technical Amendment.--Section 103 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of
subsection (i)(3) as clauses (i), (ii), and (iii),
respectively;
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (13) of
subsection (i) as subparagraphs (A) through (M),
respectively;
(3) by redesignating subsection (i) as paragraph (7);
(4) by moving such paragraph (7) (including such
subparagraphs and clauses) to the end of subsection (b); and
(5) by moving such paragraph (7) (including such
subparagraphs and clauses) 2 ems to the right.
(g) Effect on Existing Apportionments.--The amendments made
by this section shall not affect funds apportioned or
allocated under title 23, United States Code, before the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(h) Intermodal Freight Connectors Study.--
(1) Report.--Not later than 24 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall review the
condition of and improvements made to connectors on the
National Highway System approved by this Act that serve
seaports, airports, and other intermodal freight
transportation facilities since the designation of the
National Highway System and shall report to Congress on the
results of such review.
(2) Review.--In preparing the report, the Secretary shall
review the connectors designated by this Act as part of the
National Highway System and identify projects carried out on
those connectors which were intended to provide and improve
service to an intermodal facility referred to in paragraph
(1) and to facilitate the efficient movement of freight,
including movements of freight between modes.
(3) Identification of impediments.--If the Secretary
determines on the basis of the review that there are
impediments to improving the connectors serving intermodal
facilities referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
identify such impediments, including any funding for such
connectors, and make any appropriate recommendations as part
of the Secretary's report to Congress.
(i) Highway Signs on the National Highway System.--
(1) Competition.--The Secretary shall conduct in accordance
with this subsection a national children's competition to
design a national logo sign for the routes comprising the
National Highway System. Children 14 years of age and under
shall be eligible for such competition.
(2) Panel of judges.--The Secretary shall appoint a panel
of not less than 6 persons to evaluate all designs submitted
under the competition and select a winning design. The panel
shall be composed of--
(A) a representative of the Department of Transportation;
(B) a representative designated by the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials;
(C) a representative of the motor carrier industry;
(D) a representative of private organizations dedicated to
advancement of the arts; and
(E) a representative of the motoring public.
(3) Report and plan.--Not later than 24 months after the
date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
initiate and complete the competition and submit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of the
competition, a plan for the placement of logo signs on the
National Highway System, and an estimate of the cost of
implementing such plan.
(j) West Virginia Corridor 10.--The Secretary shall
designate in the State of West Virginia Route 73 between
Route 10 and United States Route 119, Route 10 between Route
80 and Route 73, and Route 80 between United States Route 52
and Route 10 as part of the National Highway System.
SEC. 107. HIGHWAY BRIDGE PROGRAM.
(a) Apportionment Formula.--Section 144(e) is amended by
inserting before the period at the end of the fourth sentence
the following: ``, and, if a State transfers funds
apportioned to it under this section in a fiscal year
beginning after September 30, 1997, to any other
apportionment of funds to such State under this title, the
total cost of deficient bridges in such State and in all
States to be determined for the succeeding fiscal year shall
be reduced by the amount of such transferred funds''.
(b) Discretionary Bridge Set-Aside.--Section 144(g)(1) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(A) Fiscal years 1992 through 1997.--''
before ``Of the amounts'';
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Fiscal year 1998.--The amounts authorized for fiscal
year 1998 by section 127(a)(1) of the Building Efficient
Surface Transportation and Equity Act of 1998 shall be at the
discretion of the Secretary. 25 percent of such amount shall
be available only for projects for the seismic retrofit of a
bridge described in subsection (l).
``(C) Fiscal years 1999 through 2003.--The amounts
authorized for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003 by
section 127(a)(1) of the Building Efficient Surface
Transportation and Equity Act of 1998 shall be at the
discretion of the Secretary. Not to exceed 25 percent of such
amount shall be available only for projects for the seismic
retrofit of bridges, including projects in the New Madrid
fault region.''; and
(3) by indenting subparagraph (A), as so designated by
paragraph (1) of this subsection, and aligning such
subparagraph (A) with subparagraphs (B) and (C), as inserted
by paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(c) Off System Bridge-Set Aside.--Section 144(g)(3) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``, 1988'' and all that follows through
``1997,'' and inserting ``through 2003,''; and
(2) by striking ``system'' each place it appears and
inserting ``highway''.
(d) Eligibility.--Section 144 is amended--
(1) in subsection (d) by inserting after ``magnesium
acetate'' the following: ``, sodium acetate/formate, or
agriculturally derived, environmentally acceptable, minimally
corrosive anti-icing and de-icing compositions or installing
scour countermeasures'';
(2) in subsection (d) by inserting after ``such acetate''
each place it appears the following: ``or sodium acetate/
formate or such anti-icing or de-icing composition or
installation of such countermeasures''; and
(3) in subsection (g)(3) by inserting after ``magnesium
acetate'' the following: ``, sodium acetate/formate, or
agriculturally derived, environmentally acceptable, minimally
corrosive anti-icing and de-icing compositions or install
scour countermeasures''.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 144(n) is amended by
striking ``system'' and inserting ``highway''.
SEC. 108. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment of Program.--Section 133(a) is amended by
inserting after ``establish'' the following: ``and
implement''.
(b) Application of Anti-icing and De-icing Compositions to
Bridges.--Section 133(b)(1) is amended by inserting after
``magnesium acetate'' the following: ``, sodium acetate/
formate, or agriculturally derived, environmentally
acceptable, minimally corrosive anti-icing and de-icing
compositions''.
(c) Transportation Control Measures.--Section 133(b)(9) is
amended by striking ``clauses (xii) and'' and inserting
``clause''.
(d) Environmental Restoration and Pollution Abatement
Projects.--Section 133(b) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(12) Environmental restoration and pollution abatement
projects, including the retrofit or construction of storm
water treatment systems, to address water pollution or
environmental degradation caused or contributed to by
existing transportation facilities at the time such
transportation facilities are undergoing reconstruction,
rehabilitation, resurfacing, or restoration;
[[Page H1923]]
except that the expenditure of funds under this section for
any such environmental restoration or pollution abatement
project shall not exceed 20 percent of the total cost of the
reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, or restoration
project.''.
(e) Division of Funds.--Section 133(d)(3)(B) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding subsection
(c), up to 15 percent of the amounts required to be obligated
under this subparagraph may be obligated on roads
functionally classified as minor collectors.''.
(f) Program Approval.--Section 133(e)(2) is amended to read
as follows:
``(2) Program approval.--Each State shall submit a project
agreement for each fiscal year, certifying that the State
will meet all the requirements of this section and notifying
the Secretary of the amount of obligations needed to
administer the surface transportation program. Each State
shall request adjustments to the amount of obligations as
needed. The Secretary's approval of the project agreement
shall be deemed a contractual obligation of the United States
for the payment of surface transportation program funds
provided under this title.''.
(g) Conforming Amendment.--Section 133(f) is amended by
striking ``6-fiscal year period 1992 through 1997'' and
inserting ``fiscal years for which funds are made available
by the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity
Act of 1998''.
(h) Encouragement of Use of Youth Conservation or Service
Corps.--The Secretary shall encourage the States to enter
into contracts and cooperative agreements with qualified
youth conservation or service corps to perform appropriate
transportation enhancement projects under chapter 1 of title
23, United States Code.
SEC. 109. CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment of Program.--Section 149(a) is amended by
inserting after ``establish'' the following: ``and
implement''.
(b) Currently Eligible Projects.--Section 149(b) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A) by striking ``clauses (xii) and'';
and inserting ``clause'';
(2) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(3) by striking ``standard.'' at the end of paragraph (4)
and inserting ``standard; or''; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) if the program or project would have been eligible
for funding on or before September 30, 1997, under guidance
issued by the Secretary to implement this section.''.
(c) Study of Effectiveness of CMAQ Program.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary shall request the National
Academy of Sciences to study the impact of the congestion
mitigation and air quality improvement program on the air
quality of nonattainment areas. The study shall, at a
minimum--
(A) determine the amount of funds obligated under such
program in each nonattainment area and to make a
comprehensive analysis of the types of projects funded under
such program;
(B) identify any improvements to or degradations of the air
quality in each nonattainment area;
(C) measure the impact of the projects funded under such
program on the air quality of each nonattainment area; and
(D) assess the cost effectiveness of projects funded under
such program in nonattainment areas, including, to the extent
possible, the cost per ton of reductions of ozone and carbon
monoxide and reduction of traffic congestion.
(2) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2000, the National
Academy of Sciences shall transmit to the Secretary, the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the
Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, and
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a
report on the results of the study with recommendations for
modifications to the congestion mitigation and air quality
improvement program in light of the results of the study.
(3) Funding.--Before making the apportionment of funds
under section 104(b)(2) for each of fiscal years 1998 and
1999, the Secretary shall deduct from the amount to be
apportioned under such section for such fiscal year, and make
available, $500,000 for such fiscal year to carry out this
subsection.
SEC. 110. HIGH RISK ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 is amended by inserting after
section 153 the following:
``Sec. 154. High risk road safety improvement program
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and
implement a high risk road safety improvement program in
accordance with this section.
``(b) Eligible Projects.--A State may obligate funds
apportioned to it under section 104(b)(4) only for
construction and operational improvement projects, and for
pavement marking and signing projects, on high risk roads and
only if the primary purpose of the project is to improve
highway safety on a high risk road.
``(c) State Allocation System.--Each State shall establish
a system for allocating funds apportioned to it under section
104(b)(4) among projects eligible for assistance under this
section that have the highest benefits to highway safety.
Such system may include a safety management system
established by the State under section 303 or a survey
established pursuant to section 152(a).
``(d) Transferability.--A State may transfer not to exceed
50 percent of the amount of funds apportioned to it under
section 104(b)(4) for any fiscal year to the apportionment of
such State under section 104(b)(1) or 104(b)(3) or both.
``(e) Applicability of Planning Requirements.--Programming
and expenditure of funds for projects under this section
shall be consistent with the requirements of sections 134 and
135.
``(f) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) High risk road.--The term `high risk road' means any
Federal-aid highway or segment of a Federal-aid highway--
``(A) on which a significant number of severe motor vehicle
crashes occur; or
``(B) which has current, or will likely have, increases in
traffic volume that are likely to create a potential for
severe crash consequences in a significant number of motor
vehicle crashes.
``(2) Severe crash.--The term `severe crash' means a motor
vehicle crash in which a fatality or incapacitating injury
occurs.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 1 is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 153 the following:
``154. High risk road safety improvement program.''.
(c) Roadway Safety Awareness and Improvement Program.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of identifying high-risk
roadway hazards and effective countermeasures and improving
the collection and public dissemination of information
regarding such hazards and their impact on the number and
severity of motor vehicle crashes, the Secretary shall enter
into an agreement with a private nonprofit national
organization that is dedicated solely to improving roadway
safety.
(2) Terms of agreement.--Under the terms of the agreement
entered into under this subsection, the organization shall--
(A) develop a pilot program to improve the collection of
data pertaining to roadway hazards and design features that
cause or increase the severity of motor vehicle crashes;
(B) develop a public awareness campaign to educate State
and local transportation officials, public safety officials,
and motorists regarding the extent to which roadway hazards
and design features are a factor in motor vehicle crashes;
and
(C) develop and disseminate information to assist State and
local transportation officials, public safety officials, and
motorists in identifying roadway hazards and effective
countermeasures.
(3) Report.--Not later than 24 months after the date of
entry into the agreement under this subsection, the Secretary
shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a
report on the status of the program authorized by this
subsection. Such report shall be updated each year
thereafter, and a final report shall be transmitted not later
than 5 years after the date of entry into the agreement.
(4) Funding.--Before funds are apportioned under section
104(b)(4) of title 23, United States Code, for each of fiscal
years 1998 through 2003, the Secretary shall deduct a sum not
to exceed $1,000,000 per fiscal year for carrying out this
subsection. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 111. MINIMUM ALLOCATION.
(a) General Rules.--Section 157(a) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking ``Thereafter'' and inserting ``Fiscal years
1992-1997''; and
(B) by striking ``fiscal year 1992 and each fiscal year
thereafter'' and inserting ``each of fiscal years 1992
through 1997''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Thereafter.--In fiscal year 1998 and each fiscal year
thereafter on October 1, or as soon as possible thereafter,
the Secretary shall allocate among the States amounts
sufficient to ensure that a State's percentage of the total
apportionments in each such fiscal year for Interstate
maintenance, the National Highway System, the bridge program,
the surface transportation program, the congestion mitigation
and air quality improvement program, the high priority
projects program, the high risk road safety improvement
program, the recreational trails program, the Appalachian
Development Highway System program, and metropolitan planning
shall not be less than 95 percent of the percentage of
estimated tax payments attributable to highway users in the
State paid into the Highway Trust Fund, other than the Mass
Transit Account, in the latest fiscal year for which data are
available. In determining allocations under this paragraph,
the Secretary shall not take into account the 2 percent set
aside under section 104(b)(3)(A).''.
(b) Availability of Funds.--Section 157(b) is amended--
(1) by inserting before ``Amounts allocated'' the
following: ``Availability of Funds.--'';
(2) by striking ``Interstate highway substitute,'' and all
that follows through ``crossing projects'' and inserting
``any purpose described in section 133(b)''; and
(3) by inserting before the period at the end ``and section
103(c) of the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and
Equity Act of 1998''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 157 is further
amended--
(1) in subsection (d) by striking ``154(f) or''; and
(2) in subsection (e) by inserting before ``In order'' the
following: ``Authorization of Appropriations.--''.
(d) Minimum Allocation Adjustment.--If the Secretary--
(1) determines that--
(A) the ratio of--
(i) the aggregate of funds made available by this Act,
including any amendments made by
[[Page H1924]]
this Act, that are apportioned to a State for Federal-aid
highway programs (including funds allocated to the State
under sections 104(j) and 157 of title 23, United States
Code) for each fiscal year beginning after September 30,
1997, to
(ii) the aggregate of such funds apportioned to all States
for such programs for such fiscal year, is less than
(B) the ratio of--
(i) estimated tax payments attributable to highway users in
the State paid into the Highway Trust Fund, other than the
Mass Transit Account, in the latest fiscal year for which
data are available, to
(ii) the estimated tax payments attributable to highway
users in all States paid into such Trust Fund in such latest
fiscal year; and
(2) determines that--
(A) the ratio determined under paragraph (1)(A), is less
than
(B) the ratio of--
(i) the aggregate of funds made available by the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, including any
amendments made by such Act, and section 202 of the National
Highway System Designation Act of 1995 that are apportioned
to the State for Federal-aid highway programs (other than
Federal lands highway programs and projects under sections
1103-1108 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991) for fiscal years 1992 through 1997, to
(ii) the aggregate of such funds apportioned to all States
for such programs for such fiscal years;
the Secretary shall allocate under such section 157 to the
State amounts sufficient to ensure that the State's
percentage of total apportionments for Federal-aid highway
programs under this Act (including amendments made by this
Act and allocations under such sections 104(j) and 157) for
such fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1997, is equal
to the State's percentage of total apportionments for
Federal-aid highway programs (other than Federal lands
highway programs and projects under sections 1103-1008 of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991) for
fiscal year 1997 under the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991, including any amendments made by such
Act, and section 202 of the National Highway System
Designation Act of 1995. The allocation shall be made on
October 1 of fiscal year 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, or
2003, as the case may be, or as soon as possible thereafter
and shall be in addition to any other allocation to the State
under such section 157 for such fiscal year.
(e) Final Adjustment.--
(1) In general.--In fiscal year 1998 and each fiscal year
thereafter on October 1, or as soon as practicable
thereafter, the Secretary shall allocate under section 157 of
title 23, United States Code, among the States amounts
sufficient to ensure that the ratio that--
(A) each State's percentage of the total apportionments for
such fiscal year for Interstate maintenance, National Highway
System, high cost Interstate system reconstruction and
improvement program, surface transportation program,
metropolitan planning, congestion mitigation and air quality
improvement program, high risk road safety improvement
program, bridge program, Appalachian development highway
system, recreational trails program, high priority projects
program, the 2 percent set aside under section 104(b)(3)(A)
of title 23, United States Code, and section 157 of such
title (including subsection (d) of this section and this
subsection), bears to
(B) each State's percentage of estimated tax payments
attributable to highway users in the State paid into the
Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) in
the latest fiscal year for which data are available;
is not less than 0.90.
(2) Treatment.--The allocation required by this paragraph
shall be in addition to any other allocation under section
157 of title 23, United States Code, including allocations
required by subsection (d) of this section.
SEC. 112. APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM.
(a) Apportionment.--The Secretary shall apportion funds
made available by section 102 of this Act for fiscal years
1998 through 2003 among the States based on the latest
available cost to complete estimate for the Appalachian
development highway system prepared by the Appalachian
Regional Commission, unless the Appalachian Regional
Commission adopts an alternative method for distribution. In
general, no State containing Appalachian development highway
system routes shall receive an apportionment of less than
$1,000,000. For fiscal years 1999 through 2003, any
alternative method for distribution adopted by the
Appalachian Regional Commission must be communicated to the
Secretary at least 30 days prior to the beginning of
the fiscal year in which the apportionment is to be made.
Such funds shall be available to construct highways and
access roads under section 201 of the Appalachian Regional
Development Act of 1965.
(b) Applicability of Title 23.--Funds authorized by section
102 of this Act for the Appalachian development highway
system under section 201 of the Appalachian Regional
Development Act of 1965 shall be available for obligation in
the same manner as if such funds were apportioned under
chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, except that the
Federal share of the cost of any project under this section
shall be determined in accordance with such section 201 and
such funds shall remain available until expended.
(c) Federal Share for Pre-Financed Projects.--Section
201(h)(1) of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965
(40 U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking ``70'' and inserting
``80''.
(d) Deduction for Administrative Expenses.--Section 201 of
such Act is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(i) Deduction for Administrative Expenses.--On October 1
of fiscal year 1998 and each fiscal year thereafter, or as
soon as is practicable thereafter, there shall be deducted,
for the expenses of the Appalachian Regional Commission in
administering the funds authorized under this section for
such year, not to exceed 3.75 percent of the funds made
available for such year under subsection (g) of this
section.''.
(e) Local Participation in Dedesignation Decisions.--
Section 201 of such Act is further amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(j) Local Participation in Dedesignation Decisions.--
Before the State of Ohio may request the dedesignation of
corridor B from the Ohio River in Scioto County to the
Scioto-Adams County line, corridor B1 from the Kentucky State
line to the junction with corridor B at Rosemount, corridor C
from the junction with corridor B at Lucasville to State
Route 159 at Chillicothe, or corridor D from the Adams County
line to the Ohio River in Washington County as segments of
the Appalachian development highway system, the State must
consult about the proposed dedesignation with local elected
officials having jurisdiction over the area in which the
segment is located and conduct public hearings on the
proposed dedesignation in each county in which any part of
the segment is located.''.
(f) Additions to Appalachian Region.--The undesignated
paragraph relating to Georgia of section 403 of such Act is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``Elbert,'' after ``Douglas,''; and
(2) by inserting ``Hart,'' after ``Haralson,''.
SEC. 113. HIGH COST INTERSTATE SYSTEM RECONSTRUCTION AND
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 160 is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 160. High cost interstate system reconstruction and
improvement program
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and
implement a high cost Interstate System reconstruction and
improvement program in accordance with this section.
``(b) Eligible Projects.--Funds made available to carry out
the high cost interstate reconstruction and improvement
program under this section for a fiscal year shall be
available for obligation by the Secretary for any major
reconstruction or improvement project to any highway
designated as part of the Interstate System and open to
traffic before the date of the enactment of the Building
Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of 1998. Such
funds shall be made available by the Secretary to any State
applying for such funds only if the Secretary determines
that--
``(1) the total cost of the project is greater than the
lesser of $200,000,000 or 50 percent of the aggregate amount
of funds apportioned to the State under this title for such
fiscal year;
``(2) the project is a ready-to-commence project;
``(3) the State agrees that it will not transfer funds
apportioned to it under section 104(b)(5) for such fiscal
year to any other program category; and
``(4) the applicant agrees to obligate the funds within 1
year of the date the funds are made available.
``(c) Allocation of Funds.--Subject to subsection (f)(1),
of the funds made available to carry out the program under
this section, the Secretary shall allocate--
``(1) not less than $165,000,000 for fiscal year 1998,
$412,500,000 for fiscal year 1999, and $670,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2000 through 2003 among States in the ratio
that the estimated cost of carrying out projects determined
by the Secretary to be eligible for funding under subsection
(b) in each State bears to the estimated cost of carrying out
such projects in all of the States; and
``(2) at the discretion of the Secretary, not more than the
amounts set forth in section 127(a)(2) for each of fiscal
years 1998 through 2003 for projects eligible for assistance
under this section to--
``(A) meet an extraordinary need for funding; or
``(B) help expedite completion of a project of national
significance.
``(d) Unallocated Funds.--
``(1) Apportionment.--If, on August 1 of fiscal year 1998
and each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary determines
that funds authorized to be allocated in such fiscal year for
the program under this section will not be allocated in such
fiscal year as a result of not enough projects being eligible
for assistance under this section, the Secretary shall
apportion under section 104(b)(5) such funds among the States
for the Interstate maintenance program.
``(2) Redistribution of obligation authority.--The
Secretary shall also redistribute on such August 1 any
obligation authority that is allocated for the fiscal year
under section 103(c)(4) of the Building Efficient Surface
Transportation and Equity Act of 1998 attributable to the
program under this section and that the Secretary determines
will not be used before September 30 of such fiscal year
among the States (other than a State from which obligation
authority for such fiscal year is redistributed under section
103(d) of such Act) in the same ratio as set forth in section
103(c)(5) of such Act.
``(e) Applicability of Planning Requirements.--Programming
and expenditure of funds for projects under this section
shall be consistent with the requirements of sections 134 and
135.
``(f) Future Allocations.--
``(1) Fiscal years 1998-2003.--For fiscal years 1998, 1999,
2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, funds to be
[[Page H1925]]
allocated pursuant to subsection (c)(1) shall be allocated in
the same manner as funds apportioned under section 104(b)(5).
Such funds shall only be available for projects eligible
under subsection (b); except that if a State does not have a
project eligible under subsection (b), funds allocated to
such State under this paragraph shall be available for any
project in such State on a segment of the Interstate System
that is open to traffic.
``(2) Determinations.--The Secretary shall, in cooperation
with States and affected metropolitan planning organizations,
determine--
``(A) the expected condition of the Interstate System over
the next 10 years and the needs of States and metropolitan
planning organizations to reconstruct and improve the
Interstate System; and
``(B) a method to allocate funds made available under this
section that would--
``(i) address the needs identified in subparagraph (A);
``(ii) provide a fair and equitable distribution of such
funds; and
``(iii) allow for States to address any extraordinary
needs.
``(3) Report.--The determination made under paragraph (2)
shall be submitted to Congress in a report not later than
January 1, 2000.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to section
160 and inserting the following:
``160. High cost interstate system reconstruction and improvement
program.''.
SEC. 114. RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Chapter 2 of title 23, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 205 the following:
``Sec. 206. Recreational trails program
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture,
shall administer a national program for the purposes of
providing and maintaining recreational trails.
``(b) Statement of Intent.--Funds made available to carry
out the recreational trails program under this section are to
be derived from revenues collected through motor fuel taxes
from nonhighway users and are to be used on trails and trail-
related projects which have been planned and developed under
the otherwise existing laws, policies, and administrative
procedures within each State, and which are identified in, or
which further a specific goal of, a trail plan included or
referenced in a statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation
plan required by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of
1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 et seq.).
``(c) State Eligibility.--A State shall be eligible to
obligate funds apportioned to it under section 104(h) only
if--
``(1) the Governor of the State has designated the State
agency or agencies that will be responsible for administering
funds received under this section; and
``(2) a recreational trail advisory committee on which both
motorized and nonmotorized recreational trail users are
fairly represented exists within the State.
``(d) Federal Share Payable.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2),
(3), (4), and (5), the Federal share payable on account of a
project under this section shall not exceed 50 percent.
``(2) Federal agency project sponsor.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, a Federal agency sponsoring a project
under this section may contribute additional Federal funds
toward a project's cost if the share attributable to the
Secretary does not exceed 50 percent and the share
attributable to the Secretary and the Federal agency jointly
does not exceed 80 percent.
``(3) Allowable match from federal programs.--The following
Federal programs may be used to contribute additional Federal
funds toward a project's cost and may be accounted for as
contributing to the non-Federal share:
``(A) State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 (Public
Law 92-512).
``(B) HUD Community Development Block Grants (Public Law
93-383).
``(C) Public Works Employment Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-
369).
``(D) Acts establishing national heritage corridors and
areas.
``(E) Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-
300).
``(F) National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993
(Public Law 103-82).
``(G) Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-93).
``(4) Programmatic non-federal share.--A State may allow
adjustments of the non-Federal share of individual projects
in a fiscal year if the total Federal share payable for all
projects within the State carried out under this section with
funds apportioned to the State under section 104(h) for such
fiscal year does not exceed 50 percent. For purposes of this
paragraph, a project funded under paragraph (2) or (3) of
this subsection may not be included in the calculation of the
programmatic non-Federal share.
``(5) State administrative costs.--The Federal share
payable on account of the administrative costs of a State
under subsection (e)(1)(A) shall be determined in accordance
with section 120(b).
``(e) Use of Funds.--
``(1) Permissible uses.--A State may use funds apportioned
to it under section 104(h)--
``(A) in an amount not exceeding 7 percent of such funds,
for administrative costs of the State;
``(B) in an amount not exceeding 5 percent of such funds,
for operation of environmental protection education and
safety education programs relating to the use of
recreational trails;
``(C) for development and rehabilitation of urban trail
linkages to provide connections to and among neighborhoods
and community centers and between trails;
``(D) for maintenance of existing recreational trails,
including the grooming and maintenance of trails across snow;
``(E) for restoration of areas damaged by usage of
recreational trails, including back country terrain;
``(F) for development and rehabilitation of trail-side and
trail-head facilities that meet goals identified by the
National Recreational Trails Advisory Committee;
``(G) for provision of features which facilitate the access
and use of trails by persons with disabilities;
``(H) for acquisition of easements for trails, or for trail
corridors identified in a State trail plan;
``(I) for acquisition of fee simple title to property from
a willing seller, when the objective of the acquisition
cannot be accomplished by acquisition of an easement or by
other means;
``(J) for construction of new trails on State, county,
municipal, or private lands, where a recreational need for
such construction is shown; and
``(K) only as otherwise permissible and where necessary and
required by a statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation
plan, for construction of new trails crossing Federal lands
if such construction is approved by the administering agency
of the State and the Federal agency or agencies charged with
management of all impacted lands and if such approval is
contingent upon compliance by the Federal agency with all
applicable laws, including the National Environmental Policy
Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et
seq.), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
``(2) Use not permitted.--A State may not use funds
apportioned to it under section 104(h)--
``(A) for condemnation of any kind of interest in property;
``(B)(i) for construction of any recreational trail on
National Forest System lands for motorized uses unless--
``(I) such lands have been allocated for uses other than
wilderness by an approved forest land and resource management
plan or have been released to uses other than wilderness by
an Act of Congress, and
``(II) such construction is otherwise consistent with the
management direction in such approved land and resource
management plan; or
``(ii) for construction of any recreational trail on Bureau
of Land Management lands for motorized uses unless--
``(I) such lands have been allocated for uses other than
wilderness by an approved Bureau of Land Management resource
management plan or have been released to uses other than
wilderness by an Act of Congress, and
``(II) such construction is otherwise consistent with the
management direction in such approved management plans; or
``(C) for upgrading, expanding, or otherwise facilitating
motorized use or access to trails predominantly used by non-
motorized trail users and on which, as of May 1, 1991,
motorized use is either prohibited or has not occurred.
``(3) Grants.--
``(A) In general.--A State may provide funds apportioned to
it under section 104(h) to make grants to private
individuals, organizations, municipal, county, State, and
Federal government entities, and other government entities as
approved by the State after considering guidance from the
recreational trail advisory committee satisfying the
requirements of subsection (c)(2), for uses consistent with
this section.
``(B) Compliance.--A State that makes grants under
subparagraph (A) shall establish measures to verify that
recipients comply with the specified conditions for the use
of grant moneys.
``(4) Assured access to funds.--Except as provided under
paragraph (7), not less than 30 percent of the funds
apportioned to a State in a fiscal year under section 104(h)
shall be reserved for uses relating to motorized recreation,
and not less than 30 percent of such funds shall be reserved
for uses relating to non-motorized recreation.
``(5) Environmental mitigation.--
``(A) Requirement.--To the extent practicable and
consistent with other requirements of this section, in
complying with paragraph (4), a State should give
consideration to project proposals that provide for the
redesign, reconstruction, nonroutine maintenance, or
relocation of trails in order to mitigate and minimize the
impact to the natural environment.
``(B) Guidance.--A recreational trail advisory committee
satisfying the requirements of subsection (c)(2) shall issue
guidance to a State for the purposes of implementing
subparagraph (A).
``(6) Diversified trail use.--
``(A) Requirement.--To the extent practicable and
consistent with other requirements of this section, a State
shall expend funds apportioned to it under section 104(h) in
a manner that gives preference to project proposals which--
``(i) provide for the greatest number of compatible
recreational purposes, including those described in
subsection (g)(3); or
``(ii) provide for innovative recreational trail corridor
sharing to accommodate motorized and non-motorized
recreational trail use.
This paragraph shall remain effective with respect to a State
until such time as the State has allocated not less than 40
percent of funds apportioned to it under section 104(h) in
such manner.
``(B) Compliance.--The State shall receive guidance for
determining compliance with subparagraph (A) from the
recreational trail advisory committee satisfying the
requirements of subsection (c)(2).
``(7) Exemptions.--
``(A) Small state.--Any State with a total land area of
less than 3,500,000 acres and in
[[Page H1926]]
which nonhighway recreational fuel use accounts for less than
1 percent of all such fuel use in the United States shall be
exempted from the requirements of paragraph (4) upon
application to the Secretary by the State demonstrating that
it meets the conditions of this paragraph.
``(B) State recreational trail advisory committee.--If
approved by the State recreational trail advisory committee
satisfying the requirements of subsection (c)(2), the State
may be exempted from the requirements of paragraph (4).
``(8) Continuing recreational use.--At the option of each
State, funds apportioned to it under section 104(h) may be
treated as Land and Water Conservation Fund moneys for the
purposes of section 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act.
``(9) Credit for donations of funds, materials, services,
or new right-of-way.--Nothing in this title or any other law
shall prevent a project sponsor from offering to donate
funds, materials, services, or new right-of-way for the
purposes of a project eligible for assistance. Any funds, or
the fair market value of any materials, services, or new
right-of-way may be donated by any project sponsor and shall
be credited to the non-Federal share in accordance with
subsection (d). Any funds or the fair market value of any
materials or services may be provided by a Federal project
sponsor and shall be credited as part of that Federal
agency's share under subsection (d)(2).
``(10) Recreational purpose.--A project funded under this
section is intended to enhance recreational opportunity and
is not subject to the provisions of section 303 of title 49
or section 138 of this title.
``(f) Coordination of Activities.--
``(1) Cooperation by federal agencies.--Each agency of the
United States that manages land on which a State proposes to
construct or maintain a recreational trail pursuant to this
section is encouraged to cooperate with the State and the
Secretary in planning and carrying out the activities
described in subsection (e). Nothing in this section
diminishes or in any way alters the land management
responsibilities, plans, and policies established by such
agencies pursuant to other applicable laws.
``(2) Cooperation by private persons.--
``(A) Written assurances.--As a condition to making
available funds for work on recreational trails that would
affect privately owned land, a State shall obtain written
assurances that the owner of the property will cooperate with
the State and participate as necessary in the activities to
be conducted.
``(B) Public access.--Any use of funds apportioned to a
State under section 104(h) on private lands must be
accompanied by an easement or other legally binding agreement
that ensures public access to the recreational trail
improvements funded by those funds.
``(g) Applicability of Chapter 1.--Funds made available to
carry out this section shall be available for obligation in
the same manner as if such funds were apportioned under
chapter 1; except that the Federal share payable for a
project using such funds shall be determined in accordance
with this section and such funds shall remain available until
expended.
``(h) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Eligible state.--The term `eligible State' means a
State that meets the requirements of subsection (c).
``(2) Nonhighway recreational fuel.--The term `nonhighway
recreational fuel' has the meaning such term has under
section 9503(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(3) Recreational trail.--The term `recreational trail'
means a thoroughfare or track across land or snow, used for
recreational purposes such as bicycling, cross-country
skiing, day hiking, equestrian activities (including carriage
driving), jogging or similar fitness activities, skating or
skateboarding, trail biking, overnight or long-distance
backpacking, snowmobiling, aquatic or water activity, or
vehicular travel by motorcycle, four-wheel drive or all-
terrain off-road vehicles, without regard to whether it is a
`National Recreation Trail' designated under section 4 of the
National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1243).
``(4) Motorized recreation.--The term `motorized
recreation' means off-road recreation using any motor-powered
vehicle, except for motorized wheelchairs.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 2 is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 205
the following:
``206. Recreational trails program.''.
(c) Repeal of Obsolete Provision.--Section 1302 of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (16
U.S.C. 1261) is repealed.
(d) Termination of Advisory Committee.--Section 1303 of
such Act (16 U.S.C. 1262) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(j) Termination.--The advisory committee established by
this section shall terminate on September 30, 2000.''.
(e) Encouragement of Use of Youth Conservation or Service
Corps.--The Secretary shall encourage the States to enter
into contracts and cooperative agreements with qualified
youth conservation or service corps to perform construction
and maintenance of recreational trails under section 206 of
title 23, United States Code.
SEC. 115. NATIONAL CORRIDOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and
implement a program to make allocations to States for
coordinated planning, design, and construction of corridors
of national significance, economic growth, and international
or interregional trade. A State may apply to the Secretary
for allocations under this section.
(b) Eligibility of Corridors.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may make allocations under
this section only with respect to high priority corridors
identified in section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
(2) Special rule.--In fiscal years 1998 through 2000, the
Secretary may make, on an interim basis pending
identification by Congress of high priority corridors as part
of a law provided for in section 508 of this Act, allocations
under this section for the creation or upgrade of any other
significant regional or multistate highway corridor not
described in whole or in part in paragraph (1) that the
Secretary determines would--
(A) facilitate international or interregional trade; or
(B) encourage or facilitate major multistate or regional
mobility and economic growth and development in areas
underserved by existing highway infrastructure.
(c) Purposes.--Allocations may be made under this section
for 1 or more of the following purposes:
(1) Feasibility studies.
(2) Comprehensive corridor planning and design activities.
(3) Location and routing studies.
(4) Environmental review.
(5) Multistate and intrastate coordination for corridors
described in subsection (b).
(6) Construction.
(d) Corridor Development and Management Plan.--A State
receiving an allocation under this section shall develop, in
consultation with the Secretary, a development and management
plan for the corridor with respect to which the allocation is
being made. Such plan shall include, at a minimum, the
following elements:
(1) A complete and comprehensive analysis of corridor costs
and benefits.
(2) A coordinated corridor development plan and schedule,
including a timetable for completion of all planning and
development activities, environmental reviews and permits,
and construction of all segments.
(3) A finance plan, including any innovative financing
methods and, if the corridor is a multistate corridor, a
State-by-State breakdown of corridor finances.
(4) The results of any environmental reviews and mitigation
plans.
(5) The identification of any impediments to the
development and construction of the corridor, including any
environmental, social, political and economic objections.
In the case of a multistate corridor, the Secretary shall
ensure that all States having jurisdiction over any portion
of such corridor will participate in the development of such
plan.
(e) Applicability of Title 23.--Funds made available by
section 127(a)(3)(B) of this Act shall be available for
obligation in the same manner as if such funds were
apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code.
(f) State Defined.--In this section, the term ``State'' has
the meaning such term has under section 101 of title 23,
United States Code.
SEC. 116. COORDINATED BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE AND SAFETY
PROGRAM.
(a) General Authority.--The Secretary shall establish and
implement a coordinated border infrastructure and safety
program under which the Secretary may make allocations to any
border State for projects to improve the safe movement of
people and goods at or across the border between the United
States and Canada and the border between the United States
and Mexico.
(b) Eligible Uses.--Allocations under this section may only
be used in a border region for--
(1) improvements to existing transportation and supporting
infrastructure that facilitate cross-border vehicle and cargo
movements;
(2) construction of highways and related safety and safety
enforcement facilities that will facilitate vehicle and cargo
movements related to international trade;
(3) operational improvements, including improvements
relating to electronic data interchange and use of
telecommunications, to expedite cross border vehicle and
cargo movement;
(4) modifications to regulatory procedures to expedite
cross border vehicle and cargo movements; and
(5) international coordination of planning, programming,
and border operation with Canada and Mexico relating to
expediting cross border vehicle and cargo movements.
(c) Selection Criteria.--The Secretary shall make
allocations under this section on the basis of--
(1) expected reduction in commercial and other motor
vehicle travel time through an international border crossing
as a result of the project;
(2) improvements in vehicle and highway safety and cargo
security related to motor vehicles crossing a border with
Canada or Mexico;
(3) strategies to increase the use of existing,
underutilized border crossing facilities and approaches;
(4) leveraging of Federal funds provided under this
section, including use of innovative financing, combination
of such funds with funding provided under other sections of
this Act, and combination with other sources of Federal,
State, local, or private funding;
(5) degree of multinational involvement in the project and
demonstrated coordination with other Federal agencies
responsible for the inspection of vehicles, cargo, and
persons crossing international borders and their counterpart
agencies in Canada and Mexico;
(6) the extent to which the innovative and problem-solving
techniques of the proposed project would be applicable to
other international border crossings;
(7) demonstrated local commitment to implement and sustain
continuing comprehensive border planning processes and
improvement programs; and
[[Page H1927]]
(8) such other factors as the Secretary determines are
appropriate to promote border transportation efficiency and
safety.
(d) State Motor Vehicle Safety Inspection Facilities.--Due
to the increase in cross-border trade as a result of the
Northern American Free Trade Agreement, of the amounts made
available to carry out this section for a fiscal year, not to
exceed $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 and not to exceed
$20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003 shall
be available for the construction of State motor vehicle
safety inspection facilities for the inspection by State
authorities of commercial motor vehicles crossing the border
to ensure the safety of such vehicles.
(e) Allocations.--
(1) Funds.--At least 40 percent of the funds made available
for carrying out this section shall be allocated for projects
in the vicinity of the border of the United States and
Mexico, and at least 40 percent of such funds shall be
allocated for projects in the vicinity of the border of the
United States and Canada.
(2) Projects.--At least 2 of the projects in the vicinity
of the border of the United States with Mexico for which
allocations are made under this section and at least 2 of the
projects in the vicinity of the border of the United States
and Canada for which allocations are made under this section
shall be located at ports of entry with high annual volumes
of traffic.
(f) Applicability of Title 23.--Funds authorized by section
127(a)(3)(A) of this Act shall be available for obligation in
the same manner as if such funds were apportioned under
chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code.
(g) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Border region.--The term ``border region'' means the
portion of a border State in the vicinity of an international
border with Canada or Mexico.
(2) Border state.--The term ``border State'' means any
State that has a boundary in common with Canada or Mexico.
SEC. 117. FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAYS PROGRAM.
(a) Federal Share Payable.--Section 120 is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)--
(A) by striking ``(c)'' and inserting ``(b)''; and
(B) by striking ``90'' and inserting ``120''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Funds Appropriated to a Federal Land Managing
Agency.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
funds appropriated to any Federal land managing agency may be
used as the non-Federal share payable on account of any
Federal-aid highway project the Federal share of which is
payable with funds apportioned under section 104 or 144 or
allocated under the Federal scenic byways program.
``(k) Funds Appropriated for Federal Lands Highways
Program.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
appropriated for carrying out the Federal lands highways
program under section 204 may be used as the non-Federal
share payable on account of any project that is carried out
with funds apportioned under section 104 or 144 or allocated
under the Federal scenic byways program if the project will
provide access to, or be carried out within, Federal or
Indian lands.''.
(b) Allocations.--Section 202 is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Allocation of Sums Authorized for Public Lands
Highways.--
``(1) In general.--On October 1 of each fiscal year and
after making the transfer provided for in section 204(i), the
Secretary shall allocate the sums authorized to be
appropriated for such fiscal year for public lands highways
for transportation projects within the boundaries of those
States having unappropriated or unreserved public lands,
nontaxable Indian lands, or other Federal reservations, on
the basis of need in such States, respectively, as determined
by the Secretary from applications for such funds by Federal
land managing agencies, Indian tribal governments, and
States.
``(2) Preference.--In allocating sums under paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall give preference to those projects that
are significantly impacted by Federal land, recreation, or
resource management activities that are proposed within the
boundaries of a State in which at least 3 percent of the
total public lands in the United States are located.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Forest Highways.--
``(1) Allocation of funds.--On October 1 of each fiscal
year and after making the transfer provided for in section
204(g), the Secretary shall allocate the sums authorized to
be appropriated for such fiscal year for forest highways as
provided in section 134 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of
1987.
``(2) Project selection.--With respect to allocations under
this subsection, the Secretary shall give priority to
projects that provide access to and within the National
Forest System, as identified by the Secretary of Agriculture
through renewable resources and land use planning and the
impact of such planning on existing transportation
facilities.''.
(c) Availability of Funds.--Section 203 is amended--
(1) by striking ``Funds authorized for,'' and inserting
``(a) In General.--Funds authorized for forest highways,'';
(2) in the fourth sentence by inserting ``forest highways''
after ``any fiscal year for''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Time of Obligation.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary's authorization of
engineering and related work for a Federal lands highways
program project or the Secretary's approval of plans,
specifications, and estimates for construction of a Federal
lands highways program project shall be deemed to constitute
a contractual obligation of the Federal Government for the
payment of its contribution to such project.''.
(d) Award of Contracts; Transfers--Section 204 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) Recognizing the need for all Federal roads that are
public roads to be treated under uniform policies similar to
those that apply to Federal-aid highways, there is
established a coordinated Federal Lands Highways Program
which shall consist of forest highways, public lands
highways, park roads and parkways, and Indian reservation
roads and bridges. The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Secretary of the appropriate Federal land managing agency,
shall develop transportation planning procedures which are
consistent with the metropolitan and Statewide planning
processes in sections 134 and 135 of this title. The
transportation improvement program developed as a part of the
transportation planning process under this section shall be
approved by the Secretary. All regionally significant Federal
Lands Highway Program projects shall be developed in
cooperation with States and metropolitan planning
organizations and be included in appropriate Federal Lands
Highways Program, State, and metropolitan plans and
transportation improvement programs. The approved Federal
Lands Highways Program transportation improvement program
shall be included in appropriate State and metropolitan
planning organization plans and programs without further
action thereon. The Secretary and the Secretary of the
appropriate Federal land managing agency shall develop
appropriate safety, bridge, and pavement management systems
for roads funded under the Federal Lands Highways Program.'';
(2) by striking the first three sentences of subsection (b)
and inserting ``Funds available for forest highways, public
lands highways, park roads and parkways, and Indian
reservation roads shall be used by the Secretary and the
Secretary of the appropriate Federal land managing agency to
pay for the cost of transportation planning, research,
engineering, and construction thereof. The Secretary and the
Secretary of the appropriate Federal land managing agency, as
appropriate, may enter into construction contracts and such
other contracts with a State or civil subdivision thereof or
Indian tribe to carry out this subsection.'';
(3) in the first sentence of subsection (e) by striking
``Secretary of the Interior'' and inserting ``Secretary of
the appropriate Federal land managing agency''; and
(4) by striking subsection (i) and inserting the following:
``(i) Transfers to Secretaries of Federal Land Managing
Agencies.--The Secretary shall transfer to the appropriate
Federal land managing agency from the appropriation for
public lands highways such amounts as may be needed to
cover--
``(1) necessary administrative costs of such agency in
connection with public lands highways; and
``(2) the cost to such agency of conducting necessary
transportation planning serving Federal lands if funding for
such planning is otherwise not provided in this section.''.
(e) Access to John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the District
of Columbia, the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts, and the Department of the Interior and in consultation
with other interested persons, shall conduct a study of
methods to improve pedestrian and vehicular access to the
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
(2) Report.--Not later than September 30, 1999, the
Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a
report containing the results of the study, together with an
assessment of the impacts (including environmental,
aesthetic, economic, and historic impacts) associated with
the implementation of each of the methods examined under the
study.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than
the Mass Transit Account) $500,000 for fiscal year 1998 to
carry out this subsection.
(4) Applicability of title 23, united states code.--Funds
authorized by this subsection shall be available for
obligation in the same manner as if such funds were
apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code,
except that the Federal share of the cost of activities
conducted using such funds shall be 100 percent and such
funds shall remain available until expended.
(f) Smithsonian Institution Transportation Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall allocate amounts made
available by this subsection for obligation at the discretion
of the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, in
consultation with the Secretary, to carry out projects and
activities described in paragraph (2).
(2) Eligible uses.--Amounts allocated under paragraph (1)
may be obligated only--
(A) for transportation-related exhibitions, exhibits, and
educational outreach programs;
(B) to enhance the care and protection of the Nation's
collection of transportation-related artifacts;
(C) to acquire historically significant transportation-
related artifacts; and
(D) to support research programs within the Smithsonian
Institution that document the history and evolution of
transportation, in cooperation with other museums in the
United States.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than
the Mass
[[Page H1928]]
Transit Account) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998
through 2003 to carry out this subsection.
(4) Applicability of title 23.--Funds authorized by this
subsection shall be available for obligation in the same
manner as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code; except that the Federal share
of the cost of any project or activity under this subsection
shall be 100 percent and such funds shall remain available
until expended.
(g) New River Parkway.--Of amounts available under section
102(a)(11)(C) of this Act, the Secretary shall allocate
$1,300,000 for fiscal year 1998, $1,200,000 for fiscal year
1999, and $9,900,000 for fiscal year 2000 to the Secretary of
the Interior for the planning, design, and construction of a
visitors center, and such other related facilities as may be
necessary, to facilitate visitor understanding and enjoyment
of the scenic, historic, cultural, and recreational resources
accessible by the New River Parkway in the State of West
Virginia. The center and related facilities shall be located
at a site for which title is held by the United States in the
vicinity of the intersection of the New River Parkway and I-
64. Such funds shall remain available until expended.
(h) Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.--
(1) Restoration of train station.--The Secretary shall
allocate amounts made available by this subsection for the
restoration of the Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, train station.
(2) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated out of
the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account)
$400,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to carry out
this subsection.
(3) Applicability of title 23.--Funds made available to
carry out this subsection shall be available for obligation
in the same manner as if such funds were apportioned under
chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; except that the
Federal share of the cost of restoration of the train station
under this subsection shall be 80 percent and such funds
shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 118. NATIONAL SCENIC BYWAYS PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``Sec. 162. National scenic byways program
``(a) Designation of Roads.--The Secretary shall carry out
a national scenic byways program that recognizes roads having
outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural,
recreational, and archaeological qualities by designating
them as `National Scenic Byways' or `All-American Roads'. The
Secretary shall designate roads to be recognized under the
national scenic byways program in accordance with criteria
developed by the Secretary. To be considered for such
designation, a road must be nominated by a State or Federal
land management agency and must first be designated as a
State scenic byway or, for roads on Federal lands, as a
Federal land management agency byway.
``(b) Allocations and Technical Assistance.--
``(1) General authority.--The Secretary shall make
allocations and provide technical assistance to States to--
``(A) implement projects on highways designated as National
Scenic Byways or All-American Roads, or as State scenic
byways; and
``(B) plan, design, and develop a State scenic byways
program.
``(2) Priority projects.--In making allocations under this
subsection, the Secretary shall give priority to--
``(A) eligible projects along highways that are designated
as National Scenic Byways or All-American Roads;
``(B) eligible projects on State-designated scenic byways
that are undertaken to make them eligible for designation as
National Scenic Byways or All-American Roads; and
``(C) eligible projects that will assist the development of
State scenic byways programs.
``(c) Eligible Projects.--The following are projects that
are eligible for Federal assistance under this section:
``(1) Activities related to planning, design, or
development of State scenic byway programs.
``(2) Development of corridor management plans for scenic
byways.
``(3) Safety improvements to a scenic byway to the extent
such improvements are necessary to accommodate increased
traffic and changes in the types of vehicles using the
highway due to such designation.
``(4) Construction along a scenic byway of facilities for
pedestrians and bicyclists, rest areas, turnouts, highway
shoulder improvements, passing lanes, overlooks, and
interpretive facilities.
``(5) Improvements to a scenic byway that will enhance
access to an area for the purpose of recreation, including
water-related recreation.
``(6) Protection of historical, archaeological, and
cultural resources in areas adjacent to scenic byways.
``(7) Development and provision of tourist information to
the public, including interpretive information about scenic
byways.
``(8) development and implementation of scenic byways
marketing programs.
``(d) Federal Share.--The Federal share payable on account
of any project carried out under this section shall be
determined in accordance with section 120(b) of this title.
For any scenic byways project along a public road that
provides access to or within Federal or Indian lands, a
Federal land management agency may use funds authorized for
its use as the non-Federal share of the costs of the project.
``(e) Protection of Scenic Integrity.--
``(1) Scenic integrity.--The Secretary shall not make an
allocation under this section for any project that would not
protect the scenic, historic, recreational, cultural,
natural, and archaeological integrity of a highway and
adjacent areas.
``(2) Savings clause.--The Secretary shall not make any
grant, provide technical assistance, or impose any
requirement on a State under this section that is
inconsistent with the authority of the State provided in this
chapter.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``162. National scenic byways program.''.
(c) Center.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall allocate funds made
available to carry out this subsection to establish a center
for national scenic byways in Duluth, Minnesota, to provide
technical communications and network support for nationally
designated scenic byway routes in accordance with paragraph
(2).
(2) Communications systems.--The center for national scenic
byways shall develop and implement communications systems for
the support of the national scenic byways program. Such
communications systems shall provide local officials and
planning groups associated with designated National Scenic
Byways or All-American Roads with proactive, technical, and
customized assistance through the latest technology which
allows scenic byway officials to develop and sustain their
National Scenic Byways or All-American Roads.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than
the Mass Transit Account) to carry out this subsection
$1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
(4) Applicability of title 23.--Funds authorized by this
subsection shall be available for obligation in the same
manner as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code; except that the Federal share
of the cost of any project under this subsection shall be 100
percent and such funds shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 119. VARIABLE PRICING PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and
implement a variable pricing program. In implementing such
program, the Secretary shall solicit the participation of
State and local governments and public authorities for 1 or
more variable pricing pilot programs. The Secretary may enter
into cooperative agreements with as many as 15 of such
governments and public authorities to conduct and monitor the
pilot programs.
(b) Federal Share Payable.--The Federal share payable for a
pilot program under this section shall be 80 percent of the
aggregate cost of the program and the Federal share payable
for any portion of a project conducted under the program may
not exceed 100 percent.
(c) Implementation Costs.--The Secretary may fund all pre-
implementation costs, including public education and project
design, and all of the development and startup costs of a
pilot project under this section, including salaries and
expenses, until such time that sufficient revenues are being
generated by the program to fund its operating costs without
Federal participation; except that the Secretary may not fund
the pre-implementation, development, and startup costs of a
pilot project for more than 3 years.
(d) Use of Revenues.--Revenues generated by any pilot
project under this section must be applied to projects
eligible for assistance under title 23, United States Code.
(e) Collection of Tolls.--Notwithstanding sections 129 and
301 of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary shall
allow the use of tolls on the Interstate System as part of a
pilot program under this section, but not as part of more
than 3 of such programs.
(f) Financial Effects on Low-Income Drivers.--Any pilot
program conducted under this section shall include an
analysis of the potential effects of the pilot program on low
income drivers and may include mitigation measures to deal
with any potential adverse financial effects on low-income
drivers.
(g) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary shall monitor the
effect of the pilot programs conducted for a period of at
least 10 years and shall report to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives biennially on the effects such programs are
having on driver behavior, traffic volume, transit ridership,
air quality, drivers of all income levels, and availability
of funds for transportation programs.
(h) HOV Passenger Requirements.--Notwithstanding section
102 of title 23, United States Code, a State may permit
vehicles with fewer than 2 occupants to operate in high-
occupancy vehicle lanes if such vehicles are part of a pilot
program being conducted under this section.
(i) Period of Availability.--Funds allocated by the
Secretary under this section shall remain available for
obligation by the State for a period of 3 years after the
last day of the fiscal year for which such funds are
authorized. Any amounts allocated under this section that
remain unobligated at the end of such period and any amounts
authorized under subsection (i) that remain unallocated by
the end of such period shall be transferred to a State's
apportionment under section 104(b)(3) of title 23, United
States Code, and shall be treated in the same manner as other
funds apportioned under such section.
(j) Applicability of Title 23.--Funds made available to
carry out this section shall be available for obligation in
the same manner as if such funds were apportioned under
chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; except that the
Federal share of the cost of any project under this section
and the availability of such funds shall be determined in
accordance with this section.
(k) Repeal.--Section 1012(b) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 149 note;
105 Stat. 1938) is repealed.
SEC. 120. TOLL ROADS, BRIDGES, AND TUNNELS.
(a) Federal Share Payable.--Section 120 is amended by
adding at the end the following:
[[Page H1929]]
``(l) Credit for Non-Federal Share.--
``(1) Eligibility.--A State may use as a credit toward the
non-Federal matching share requirement for any funds made
available to carry out this title (other than the emergency
relief program authorized in section 125) or chapter 53 of
title 49 toll revenues that are generated and used by public,
quasi-public, and private agencies to build, improve, or
maintain highways, bridges, or tunnels that serve the public
purpose of interstate commerce. Such public, quasi-public, or
private agencies shall have built, improved, or maintained
such facilities without Federal funds.
``(2) Maintenance of effort.--
``(A) In general.--The credit for any non-Federal share
provided under this subsection shall not reduce nor replace
State funds required to match Federal funds for any program
under this title.
``(B) Agreements.--In receiving a credit for non-Federal
capital expenditures under this subsection, a State shall
enter into such agreements as the Secretary may require to
ensure that the State will maintain its non-Federal
transportation capital expenditures at or above the average
level of such expenditures for the preceding 3 fiscal years.
``(3) Treatment.--
``(A) Limitation on liability.--Use of a credit for a non-
Federal share under this subsection that is received from a
public, quasi-public, or private agency--
``(i) shall not expose the agency to additional liability,
additional regulation, or additional administrative
oversight; and
``(ii) shall not subject the agency to any additional
Federal design standards, laws, or regulations as a result of
providing the non-Federal match other than those to which the
agency is already subject.
``(B) Chartered multistate agencies.--When a credit that is
received from a chartered multistate agency is applied for a
non-Federal share under this subsection, such credit shall be
applied equally to all charter States.''.
(b) Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation
Pilot Program.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and
implement an Interstate System reconstruction and
rehabilitation pilot program under which the Secretary,
notwithstanding sections 129 and 301 of title 23, United
States Code, may permit a State to collect tolls on a
highway, bridge, or tunnel on the Interstate System for the
purpose of reconstructing and rehabilitating Interstate
highway corridors that could not otherwise be adequately
maintained or functionally improved without the collection of
tolls.
(2) Limitation on number of facilities.--The Secretary may
permit the collection of tolls under this subsection on 3
facilities on the Interstate System. Each of such facilities
shall be located in a different State.
(3) Eligibility.--In order to be eligible to participate in
the pilot program, a State shall submit to the Secretary an
application that contains, at a minimum, the following:
(A) An identification of the facility on the Interstate
System proposed to be a toll facility, including the age,
condition, and intensity of use of such facility.
(B) In the case of a facility that affects a metropolitan
area, an assurance that the metropolitan planning
organization established under section 134 of title 23,
United States Code, for the area has been consulted
concerning the placement and amount of tolls on the facility.
(C) An analysis demonstrating that such facility could not
be maintained or improved to meet current or future needs
from the State's apportionments and allocations made
available by this Act (including amendments made by this Act)
and from revenues for highways from any other source without
toll revenues.
(D) A facility management plan that includes--
(i) a plan for implementing the imposition of tolls on the
facility;
(ii) a schedule and finance plan for the reconstruction or
rehabilitation of the facility using toll revenues;
(iii) a description of the public transportation agency
which will be responsible for implementation and
administration of the pilot toll reconstruction and
rehabilitation program; and
(iv) a description of whether consideration will be given
to privatizing the maintenance and operational aspects of the
converted facility, while retaining legal and administrative
control of the Interstate route section.
(E) Such other information as the Secretary may require.
(4) Selection criteria.--The Secretary may approve the
application of a State under paragraph (3) only if the
Secretary determines the following:
(A) The State is unable to reconstruct or rehabilitate the
proposed toll facility using existing apportionments.
(B) The facility has a sufficient intensity of use, age, or
condition to warrant the collection of tolls.
(C) The State plan for implementing tolls on the facility
takes into account the interests of local, regional, and
interstate travelers.
(D) The State plan for reconstruction or rehabilitation of
the facility using toll revenues is reasonable.
(E) The State has given preference to the use of an
existing public toll agency with demonstrated capability to
build, operate, and maintain a toll expressway system meeting
criteria for the Interstate System.
(5) Limitations on use of revenues; audits.--Before the
Secretary may permit a State to participate in the pilot
program, the State must enter into an agreement with the
Secretary that provides that--
(A) all toll revenues received from operation of the toll
facility will be used only for debt service, for reasonable
return on investment of any private person financing the
project, and for any costs necessary for the improvement of
and the proper operation and maintenance of the toll
facility, including reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration,
and rehabilitation of the toll facility; and
(B) regular audits will be conducted to ensure compliance
with subparagraph (A) and the results of such audits will be
transmitted to the Secretary.
(6) Limitation on use of interstate maintenance funds.--
During the term of the pilot program, funds apportioned for
Interstate maintenance under section 104(b)(5) of title 23,
United States Code, may not be used on a facility for which
tolls are being collected under the program.
(7) Program term.--The Secretary shall conduct the pilot
program under this section for a term to be determined by the
Secretary but not less than 10 years.
(8) Interstate system defined.--In this subsection, the
term ``Interstate System'' has the same meaning such term has
under section 101(a) of title 23, United States Code.
(c) Bridge Reconstruction or Replacement.--Section
129(a)(1)(C) is amended by striking ``toll-free bridge or
tunnel'' and inserting ``toll-free major bridge or toll-free
tunnel''.
SEC. 121. CONSTRUCTION OF FERRY BOATS AND FERRY TERMINAL
FACILITIES.
(a) Obligation of Amounts.--Section 1064(c) of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23
U.S.C. 129 note; 105 Stat. 2005) is amended to read as
follows:
``(c) Obligation of Amounts.--Amounts made available out of
the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account)
to carry out this section may be obligated at the discretion
of the Secretary. Such sums shall remain available until
expended.''.
(b) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of
ferry transportation in the United States and its
possessions--
(A) to identify existing ferry operations, including--
(i) the locations and routes served; and
(ii) the source and amount, if any, of funds derived from
Federal, State, or local government sources supporting ferry
operations; and
(B) to identify potential domestic ferry routes in the
United States and its possessions and to develop information
on those routes.
(2) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report on the
results of the study required under paragraph (1) to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate.
(c) Ferry Operating and Leasing Amendments.--Section 129(c)
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``owned.'' and inserting
``owned or operated.''; and
(2) in paragraph (6) by striking ``sold, leased, or'' and
inserting ``sold or''.
SEC. 122. HIGHWAY USE TAX EVASION PROJECTS.
(a) Applicability of Title 23.--Section 1040(f) of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23
U.S.C. 101 note; 105 Stat. 1992) is amended to read as
follows:
``(f) Applicability of Title 23.--Funds made available out
of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit
Account) to carry out this section shall be available for
obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as if
such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23,
United States Code; except that the Federal share of the cost
of any project carried out under this section shall be 100
percent and such funds shall remain available for obligation
for a period of 1 year after the last day of the fiscal year
for which the funds are authorized.''.
(b) Automated Fuel Reporting System.--Section 1040 of such
Act (23 U.S.C. 101 note; 105 Stat. 1992) is amended by
redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h) and by
inserting after subsection (f) the following:
``(g) Automated Fuel Reporting System.--Of the amounts made
available to carry out this section for each of fiscal years
1998 through 2003, the Secretary shall make available
sufficient funds to the Internal Revenue Service to establish
and operate an automated fuel reporting system.''.
(c) Technical Amendment.--Section 1040(a) of such Act (23
U.S.C. 101 note; 105 Stat. 1992) is amended by striking ``by
subsection (e)''.
SEC. 123. PERFORMANCE BONUS PROGRAM.
(a) Study.--The Secretary shall develop performance-based
criteria for the distribution of not to exceed 5 percent of
the funds from each of the following programs:
(1) The Interstate maintenance program under section 119 of
title 23, United States Code.
(2) The bridge program under section 144 of such title.
(3) The high risk road safety improvement program under
section 154 of such title.
(4) The surface transportation program under section 133 of
such title.
(5) The congestion mitigation and air quality improvement
program under section 149 of such title.
(b) Requirements for Development of Criteria.--Performance-
based criteria developed by the Secretary under subsection
(a) shall assess on a statewide basis the following:
(1) For the Interstate maintenance program, whether
pavement conditions on routes on the Interstate System in the
State have consistently been of a high quality or have
recently improved.
(2) For the bridge program, whether the percentage of
deficient bridges in the State has consistently been low or
has recently decreased.
(3) For the high risk road safety improvement program,
whether the level of safety on highways in the State has
consistently been high or has recently improved.
(4) For the surface transportation program, whether the
level of financial effort in State
[[Page H1930]]
funding for highway and transit investments has been high or
has recently increased.
(5) For the congestion mitigation and air quality
improvement program, whether the environmental performance of
the transportation system has been consistently high or has
improved.
(c) Required Submission.--Not later than 18 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
transmit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate the
performance-based criteria developed under subsection (a).
SEC. 124. METROPOLITAN PLANNING.
(a) General Requirements.--Section 134(a) is amended by
inserting after ``and goods'' the following: ``and foster
economic growth and development''.
(b) Coordination of MPOs.--Section 134(e) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``MPO's'' and
inserting ``MPOs'';
(2) by inserting before ``If'' the following: ``(1)
Nonattainment areas.--'';
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Project located in multiple mpos.--If a project is
located within the boundaries of more than one metropolitan
planning organization, the metropolitan planning
organizations shall coordinate plans regarding the
project.''; and
(4) by indenting paragraph (1), as designated by paragraph
(2) of this subsection, and aligning such paragraph (1) with
paragraph (2), as added by paragraph (3) of this subsection.
(c) Goals and Objectives of Planning Process.--Section
134(f) is amended to read as follows:
``(f) Goals and Objectives of Planning Process.--To the
extent that the metropolitan planning organization determines
appropriate, the metropolitan transportation planning process
may include consideration of goals and objectives that--
``(1) support the economic vitality of the metropolitan
area, especially by enabling global competitiveness,
productivity, and efficiency;
``(2) increase the safety and security of the
transportation system for all users;
``(3) increase the accessibility and mobility for people
and freight;
``(4) protect and enhance the environment, conserve energy,
and enhance quality of life;
``(5) enhance the integration and connectivity of the
transportation system, across and between modes, for people
and freight;
``(6) promote efficient system utilization and operation;
and
``(7) preserve and optimize the existing transportation
system.
This subsection shall apply to the development of long-range
transportation plans and transportation improvement
programs.''.
(d) Long-Range Plan.--Section 134(g) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``transportation'' after
``long-range'';
(2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``, at a minimum'' and
inserting ``contain, at a minimum, the following'';
(3) in paragraph (2)(A)--
(A) by striking ``Identify'' and inserting ``An
identification of ''; and
(B) by striking ``shall consider'' and inserting ``may
consider'';
(4) by striking paragraph (2)(B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) A financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted
transportation plan can be implemented, indicates resources
from public and private sources that are reasonably expected
to be made available to carry out the plan and recommends any
additional financing strategies for needed projects and
programs. The financial plan may include, for illustrative
purposes, additional projects that would be included in the
adopted transportation plan if reasonable additional
resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were
available. For the purpose of developing the transportation
plan, the metropolitan planning organization and State shall
cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will be
available to support plan implementation.'';
(5) in paragraph (4) by inserting after ``employees,'' the
following: ``freight shippers and providers of freight
transportation services,''; and
(6) in paragraph (5) by inserting ``transportation'' before
``plan prepared''.
(e) Transportation Improvement Program.--Section 134(h) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2 years'' and inserting
``3 years''; and
(2) by adding at the end of paragraph (2)(B) the following:
``The financial plan may include, for illustrative purposes,
additional projects that would be included in the adopted
transportation plan if reasonable additional resources beyond
those identified in the financial plan were available.''.
(f) Transportation Management Areas.--Section 134(i) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (4) by inserting after ``System'' each
place it appears the following: ``, under the high risk road
safety program,''; and
(2) in paragraph (5)--
(A) by striking ``(1)'' and inserting ``(A)''; and
(B) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(B)''.
SEC. 125. STATEWIDE PLANNING.
(a) Scope of Planning Process.--Section 135(c) is amended
to read as follows:
``(c) Scope of the Planning Process.--To the extent that a
State determines appropriate, the State may consider goals
and objectives in the transportation planning process that--
``(1) support the economic vitality of the Nation, its
States and metropolitan areas, especially by enabling global
competitiveness, productivity and efficiency;
``(2) increase the safety and security of the
transportation system for all users;
``(3) increase the accessibility and mobility for people
and freight;
``(4) protect and enhance the environment, conserve energy,
and enhance the quality of life;
``(5) enhance the integration and connectivity of the
transportation system, across and between modes throughout
the State for people and freight;
``(6) promote efficient system utilization and operation;
and
``(7) preserve and optimize the existing transportation
system.''.
(b) Additional Considerations.--Section 135(d) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Requirements''
and inserting ``Considerations''; and
(2) by striking ``shall, at a minimum,'' and inserting
``may''.
(c) Long-Range Plan.--Section 135(e) is amended by
inserting after ``representatives,'' the following: ``freight
shippers and providers of freight transportation services,''.
(d) Transportation Improvement Program.--Section 135(f) is
amended--
(1) by inserting after the second sentence of paragraph (1)
the following: ``With respect to nonmetropolitan areas of the
State (areas with less than 50,000 population), the program
shall be developed by the State, in cooperation with elected
officials of affected local governments and elected officials
of subdivisions of affected local governments which have
jurisdiction over transportation planning, through a process
developed by the State which ensures participation by such
elected officials.'';
(2) in paragraph (1) by inserting after
``representatives,'' the following: ``freight shippers and
providers of freight transportation services,'';
(3) in paragraph (2) by inserting before the last sentence
the following: ``The program may include, for illustrative
purposes, additional projects that would be included in the
program if reasonable additional resources were available.'';
(4) in paragraph (3) by inserting after ``System'' each
place it appears the following: ``, under the high risk road
safety program,'';
(5) in the heading to paragraph (4) by striking
``Biennial'' and inserting ``Triennial''; and
(6) in paragraph (4) by striking ``biennially'' and
inserting ``triennially''.
(e) Participation of Local Elected Officials.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on the
effectiveness of the participation of local elected officials
in transportation planning and programming. In conducting the
study, the Secretary shall consider the degree of cooperation
between State, local rural officials, and regional planning
and development organizations in different States.
(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to
Congress a report containing the results of the study with
any recommendations the Secretary determines appropriate as a
result of the study.
SEC. 126. ROADSIDE SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES.
(a) Crash Cushions.--
(1) Guidance.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall initiate and issue
a guidance regarding the benefits and safety performance of
redirective and nonredirective crash cushions in different
road applications, taking into consideration roadway
conditions, operating speed limits, the location of the crash
cushion in the right-of-way, and any other relevant factors.
The guidance shall include recommendations on the most
appropriate circumstances for utilization of redirective and
nonredirective crash cushions.
(2) Use of guidance.--States shall use the guidance issued
under this subsection in evaluating the safety and cost-
effectiveness of utilizing different crash cushion designs
and determining whether directive or nonredirective crash
cushions or other safety appurtenances should be installed at
specific highway locations.
(b) Traffic Flow and Safety Applications of Road
Barriers.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on the
technologies and methods to enhance safety, streamline
construction, and improve capacity by providing positive
separation at all times between traffic, equipment, and
workers on highway construction projects. The study shall
also address how such technologies can be used to improve
capacity and safety at those specific highway, bridge, and
other appropriate locations where reversible lane,
contraflow, and high occupancy vehicle lane operations are
implemented during peak traffic periods.
(2) Factors to consider.--In conducting the study, the
Secretary shall consider, at a minimum, uses of positive
separation technologies related to--
(A) separating workers from traffic flow when work is in
progress;
(B) providing additional safe work space by utilizing
adjacent and available traffic lanes during off-peak hours;
(C) rapid deployment to allow for daily or periodic
restoring lanes for use by traffic during peak hours as
needed;
(D) mitigating congestion caused by construction by--
(i) opening all adjacent and available lanes to traffic
during peak traffic hours; or
(ii) use of reversible lanes to optimize capacity of the
highway by adjusting to directional traffic flow; and
(E) permanent use of positive separation technologies to
create contraflow or reversible lanes to increase the
capacity of congested highways, bridges, and tunnels.
[[Page H1931]]
(3) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secreary shall submit a report to
Congress on the results of the study. The report shall
include findings and recommendations for the use of the
identified technologies to provide positive separation on
appropriate projects and locations. The Secretary shall
provide the report to the States for their use on appropriate
projects on the National Highway System and other Federal-aid
highways.
SEC. 127. DISCRETIONARY PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Executive Branch Discretionary Programs.--
(1) Bridge discretionary program.--The amount set aside by
the Secretary under section 144(g)(2) of title 23, United
States Code, shall be $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years
1998 through 2003.
(2) High cost interstate system reconstruction and
improvement program.--The amount the Secretary shall allocate
for the high cost Interstate System reconstruction and
improvement program under section 160(c)(2) of title 23,
United States Code, shall not be more than $100,000,000 for
fiscal year 1998, $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1999,
$250,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $252,000,000 for fiscal
year 2001, $252,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and
$397,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(3) Additional executive branch discretionary programs.--Of
amounts made available by section 102(a)(8) of this Act, the
following sums shall be available:
(A) Coordinated border infrastructure and safety program.--
For the coordinated border infrastructure and safety program
under section 116 of this Act $70,000,000 for fiscal year
1998, $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, and $100,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
(B) National corridor planning and development program.--
For the national corridor planning and development program
under section 115 of this Act $50,000,000 for fiscal year
1998, $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, and $250,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
(C) Construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal
facilities.--For construction of ferry boats and ferry
terminal facilities under section 1064 of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 129
note; 105 Stat. 2005) $18,000,000 for each of fiscal years
1998 through 2003.
(D) National scenic byways program.--For the national
scenic byway program under section 162 of title 23, United
States Code, $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998
through 2003.
(E) Variable pricing pilot program.--For the variable
pricing pilot program under section 119 of this Act
$10,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 and $14,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
(F) Highway research.--For highway research under sections
307, 308, and 325 of title 23, United States Code,
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $185,000,000 for fiscal
year 1999, and $195,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000
through 2003.
(G) Transportation education, professional training, and
technology deployment.--For transportation education,
professional training, and technology deployment under
sections 321, 322, and 326 of title 23, United States Code,
and section 5505 of title 49, United States Code, $50,000,000
for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999 and $55,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
(H) Transportation technology innovation and demonstration
program.--For Transportation technology innovation and
demonstration program under section 632 of this Act
$43,667,000 for fiscal year 1998, $44,667,000 for fiscal year
1999, $48,167,000 for fiscal year 2000, $47,717,000 for
fiscal year 2001, $47,967,000 for fiscal year 2002, and
$48,217,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(I) Intelligence transportation systems programs.--For
intelligence transportation systems programs under subtitle B
of title VI of this Act $175,000,000 for each of fiscal years
1998 through 2003.
(4) Transportation assistance for olympic cities.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 130 of
this Act, relating to transportation assistance for Olympic
cities, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1998
through 2003.
(b) Legislative Branch Discretionary Programs.--Section 104
is amended by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k)
and by inserting after subsection (i) the following:
``(j) High Priority Projects Program.--
``(1) In general.--Of amounts made available by section
102(a)(8) of the Building Efficient Surface Transportation
and Equity Act of 1998, $1,025,695,000 for fiscal year 1998,
$1,398,675,000 for fiscal year 1999, $1,678,410,000 for
fiscal year 2000, $1,678,410,000 for fiscal year 2001,
$1,771,655,000 for fiscal year 2002, and $1,771,655,000 for
fiscal year 2003 shall be available for high priority
projects in accordance with this subsection. Such funds shall
remain available until expended.
``(2) Authorization of high priority projects.--The
Secretary is authorized to carry out high priority projects
with funds made available by paragraph (1). Of amounts made
available by paragraph (1), the Secretary, subject to
paragraph (3), shall make available to carry out each project
described in section 127(c) of such Act the amount listed for
such project in such section. Any amounts made available by
this subsection that are not allocated for projects described
in section 127(c) shall be available to the Secretary,
subject to paragraph (3), to carry out such other high
priority projects as the Secretary determines appropriate.
``(3) Allocation percentages.--For each project to be
carried out with funds made available by paragraph (1)--
``(A) 11 percent of the amount allocated by such section
shall be available for obligation beginning in fiscal year
1998;
``(B) 15 percent of such amount shall be available for
obligation beginning in fiscal year 1999;
``(C) 18 percent of such amount shall be available for
obligation beginning in fiscal year 2000;
``(D) 18 percent of such amount shall be available for
obligation beginning in fiscal year 2001;
``(E) 19 percent of such amount shall be available for
obligation beginning in fiscal year 2002; and
``(F) 19 percent of such amount shall be available for
obligation beginning in fiscal year 2003.
``(4) Federal share.--The Federal share payable on account
of any project carried out with funds made available by
paragraph (1) shall be 80 percent of the total cost thereof.
``(5) Delegation to states.--Subject to the provisions of
title 23, United States Code, the Secretary shall delegate
responsibility for carrying out a project or projects, with
funds made available by paragraph (1), to the State in which
such project or projects are located upon request of such
State.
``(6) Advance construction.--When a State which has been
delegated responsibility for a project under this
subsection--
``(A) has obligated all funds allocated under this
subsection of such Act for such project; and
``(B) proceeds to construct such project without the aid of
Federal funds in accordance with all procedures and all
requirements applicable to such project, except insofar as
such procedures and requirements limit the State to the
construction of projects with the aid of Federal funds
previously allocated to it;
the Secretary, upon the approval of the application of a
State, shall pay to the State the Federal share of the cost
of construction of the project when additional funds are
allocated for such project under this subsection and such
section 127(c).
``(7) Nonapplicability of obligation limitation.--Funds
made available by paragraph (1) shall not be subject to any
obligation limitation.''.
(c) High Priority Projects.--Subject to section 104(j)(3)
of title 23, United States Code, the amount listed for each
high priority project in the following table shall be
available (from amounts made available by section 104(j) of
such title) for fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to carry out
each such project:
[Dollars in Millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Dist. of Col.................. Implement traffic 8.000
signalization, freeway
management and motor
vehicle information
systems, Washington,
D.C....................
2. West Virginia................. Upgrade US 340 between 6.500
West Virginia/Virginia
State line and the
Charles Town Bypass....
3. New York...................... Construct bridge deck 0.750
over the Metro North
right-of-way along Park
Ave. between E. 188th
and 189th Streets......
4. Oregon........................ Upgrade access road and 1.500
related facilities to
Port Orford, Port
Orford.................
5. Minnesota..................... Upgrade Perpich Memorial 2.800
from 2 miles south of
Biwabik to CSAH 111....
6. Indiana....................... Upgrade Route 31 and 7.000
other roads, St. Joseph
and Elkhart Counties...
7. Illinois...................... Upgrade Western Ave., 0.126
Park Forest............
8. Washington.................... Undertake FAST Corridor 32.000
improvements with the
amounts provided as
follows: $16,000,000 to
construct the North
Duwamish Intermodal
Project, $4,500,000 for
the Port of Tacoma Road
project, $3,000,000 for
the SW Third St./BSNF
project in Auburn,
$2,000,000.............
9. Dist. of Col.................. Implement Geographical 10.000
Information System,
Washington, D.C........
10. New York..................... Reconstruct Niagara St., 3.500
Quay St., and 8th St.
including realignment
of Qual St. and 8th
Ave. in Niagara Falls..
11. California................... Construct the San 0.500
Fernando Valley
Regional Transportation
Hub in Los.............
12. Washington................... Construct Cross Base 0.500
Corridor, Fort Lewis-
McChord AFB............
13. Illinois..................... Rehabilitate 95th Street 0.600
between 54th Place and
50th Avenue, Oak Lawn..
14. Virginia..................... Reconstruct SR 168 8.000
(Battlefield Blvd.) in
Chesapeake.............
15. New York..................... Construct interchange 13.000
and connector road
using ITS testbed
capabilities at I-90
Exit 8.................
[[Page H1932]]
16. Minnesota.................... Trunk Highway 53 DWP 4.800
railroad bridge
replacement, St. Louis
Co.....................
17. Illinois..................... Resurface Cicero Ave. 0.610
between 127th St. and
143rd St., Chicago.....
18. Illinois..................... Undertake improvements 1.000
to 127th Street, Cicero
Avenue and Route 83 to
improve safety and
facilitate traffic
flow, Crestwood........
19. Illinois..................... Construct I-57 15.000
interchange, Coles Co..
20. Connecticut.................. Construct Harford 3.520
Riverwalk South,
Hartford...............
21. Virgin Islands............... Upgrade West-East 8.000
corridor through
Charlotte Amalie.......
22. Connecticut.................. Improve pedestrian and 4.520
bicycle connections
between Union Station
and downtown New London
23. North Carolina............... Upgrade US 13 (including 1.000
Ahoskie bypass) in
Bertie and Hertford
Counties...............
24. Wisconsin.................... Construct Chippewa Falls 6.000
Bypass.................
25. Mississippi.................. Upgrade Brister Rd. 0.510
between Tutwiler and
Coahoma County line,
Tallahatchie Co........
26. Florida...................... Construct improvements 1.000
to JFK Boulevard,
Eatonville.............
27. Illinois..................... Reconstruct Greenbriar 1.400
Rd. with construction
of new turn lanes in
vicinity of John A.
Logan College in
Carterville............
28. Connecticut.................. Construct overlook and 3.080
access to Niantic Bay..
29. California................... Construct sound walls 2.532
along SR23 in Thousand
Oaks...................
30. Mississippi.................. Construct I-20 /Norrell 5.000
Road interchange, Hinds
County.................
31. North Carolina............... Upgrade I-85, 26.000
Mecklenburg and
Cabarrus Counties......
32. New Jersey................... Construct, reconstruct 4.000
and integrate multi-
transportation modes to
establish intermodal
transportation corridor
and center between
Elizabeth and Newark...
33. Texas........................ Road improvements along 2.500
historic mission trails
in San Antonio.........
34. Mississippi.................. Construct Lincoln Road 1.500
extension, Lamar Co....
35. Texas........................ Upgrade JFK Causeway, 3.000
Corpus Christi.........
36. Florida...................... Enhance access to 1.200
Gateway Marketplace
through improvements to
access roads,
Jacksonville...........
37. California................... Implement traffic 0.500
management
improvements, Grover
Beach..................
38. California................... Construct Chatsworth 0.492
Depot Bicycle and
Pedestrian Access
project, Los...........
39. California................... Reconstruct Palos Verdes 0.450
Drive, Palos Verdes
Estates................
40. Wisconsin.................... Construct freeway 20.000
conversion project on
Highway 41 between
Kaukauna and Brown
County Highway F.......
41. California................... Upgrade Price Canyon 1.100
Road including
construction of bikeway
between San Luis Obispo
and Pismo Beach........
42. Arkansas..................... Upgrade US Rt. 67, 2.000
Newport to Missouri
State line.............
43. Missouri..................... Construct extension of 1.200
bike path between
Soulard market area and
Riverfront bike trail
in St. Louis...........
44. Massachusetts................ Construct Greenfield- 0.900
Montague Bikeways,
Franklin Co............
45. Vermont...................... Replace Missisquoi Bay 16.000
Bridge.................
46. California................... Upgrade Route 4 East in 10.000
Contra Costa Co........
47. Minnesota.................... Construct Phalen Blvd. 13.000
between I-35E and I94..
48. Ohio......................... Upgrade North Road 1.200
between US 422 and East
Market St., Trumbull
Co.....................
49. Michigan..................... Construct bike path 5.000
between Mount Clemens
and New Baltimore......
50. Maryland..................... Upgrade US 29 12.000
interchange with
Randolph Road,
Montgomery Co..........
51. Texas........................ Construct Texas State 6.400
Highway 49 between FM
1735 to Titus/Morris
Co. line...............
52. Wisconsin.................... Upgrade Marshfield 5.000
Blvd., Marshfield......
53. California................... Reconstruct the I-710/ 16.000
Firestone Blvd.
interchange............
54. Massachusetts................ Construct I-495/Route 2 4.200
interchange east of
existing interchange to
provide access to
commuter rail station,
Littleton..............
55...............................
Maryland......................... Undertake transportation 13.300
infrastructure
improvements within
Baltimore Empowerment
Zone...................
56. West Virginia................ Preliminary engineering, 2.000
design and construction
of the Orgas to Chelayn
Road, Boone Co.........
57. Minnesota.................... Upgrade CSAH 1 from CSAH 0.480
61 to 0.8 miles north..
58. South Carolina............... Widen North Main Street, 9.750
Columbia...............
59. Texas........................ Construct 9.900
circumferential freeway
loop around Texarkana..
60. Texas........................ Upgrade FM517 between 3.856
Owens and FM 3346,
Galveston..............
61. Michigan..................... Reconstruct Co.Rd. 612 0.910
and Co.Rd. 491,
Montmorency Co.........
62. Ohio......................... Construct Chesapeake 5.000
Bypass, Lawrence Co....
63. California................... Construct I-10/Pepper 8.800
Ave. Interchange.......
64. Pennsylvania................. Construct safety and 8.200
capacity improvements
to Rt. 309 and Old
Packhouse Road
including widening of
Old Packhouse Road
between KidsPeace
National Hospital to
Rt. 309................
65. Iowa......................... Relocate US 61 to bypass 3.000
Fort Madison...........
66. Rhode Island................. Install directional 0.300
signs in Newport and
surrounding communities
67. Pennsylvania................. Construct access to 1.600
Tioga Marine Terminal,
Ports of Philadelphia
and Camden.............
68. New York..................... Construct bikeway and 2.400
pedestrian trail
improvements, Rochester
69. Ohio......................... Upgrade U.S. Route 422 4.720
through Girard.........
70. Tennessee.................... State Highway 109 1.840
upgrade planning and
engineering............
71. Virginia..................... Construct transportation 2.000
demonstration project
utilizing magnetic
levitation technology
along route of `Smart
Road' between
Blacksburg and Roanoke.
72. Massachusetts................ Construct Nowottuck- 4.000
Manhan Bike Trail
connections,
Easthampton, Amherst,
Holyoke, Williamsburg
and Northampton........
73. New Jersey................... Reconstruct Essex Street 2.500
Bridge, Bergen Co......
74. Illinois..................... Undertake traffic 1.520
mitigation and
circulation
enhancements, 57th and
Lake Shore Drive.......
75. Alabama...................... Upgrade County Road 39 1.000
between Highway 84 and
Silver Creek Park,
Clarke Co..............
76. Virginia..................... Construct road 0.125
improvements, trailhead
and related facilities
for Birch Knob Trail on
Cumberland Mountain....
77. Washington................... Construct SR 167 1.500
Corridor, Tacoma.......
78. Pennsylvania................. Construct Johnstown- 1.600
Cambria County Airport
Relocation Road........
79. Mississippi.................. Construct connector 8.500
between US-90 and I-10
in Biloxi..............
80. Alabama...................... Upgrade SR 5 in Bibb Co. 1.700
81. Maryland..................... Upgrade roads within 3.200
Leakin Park Intermodal
Corridor, Baltimore....
82. Illinois..................... Construct US Route 67 11.700
bypass project around
Roseville..............
83. Pennsylvania................. Construct California 1.000
University of
Pennsylvania intermodal
facility...............
[[Page H1933]]
84. Virginia..................... Planning and design for 1.200
Coalfields Expressway,
Buchanan, Dickenson and
Wise Counties..........
85. Oregon....................... Design and engineering 0.500
for Tualatin-Sherwood
Bypass.................
86. California................... Upgrade Route 4 West in 10.000
Contra Costa Co........
87. Connecticut.................. Construct I-95 26.000
interchange, New Haven.
88. Illinois..................... Replace Lebanon Ave. 1.000
Bridge and approaches,
Belleville.............
89. Minnesota.................... Upgrade Highway 73 from 3.700
4.5 miles north of
Floodwood to 22.5 miles
north of Floodwood.....
90. Illinois..................... Reconstruct Mt. Erie 5.290
Blacktop in Mt. Erie...
91. Michigan..................... Construct grade 7.000
separation on Sheldon
Road, Plymouth.........
92. Connecticut.................. Construct the US Rt. 7 5.000
bypass project,
Brookfield to New
Milford town line......
93. Mississippi.................. Upgrade Cowan-Lorraine 10.000
Rd. between I-10 and
U.S. 90, Harrison Co...
94. Alabama...................... Construct repairs to 0.600
Pratt Highway Bridge,
Birmingham.............
95. Alabama...................... Initiate work on 8.000
controlled access
highway between I-65
and Mississippi State
line...................
96. Michigan..................... Upgrade Walton Blvd. 2.000
between Opdyke and
Squirrel, Oakland Co...
97. Michigan..................... Construct Monroe Rail 6.000
Consolidation Project,
Monroe.................
98. Massachusetts................ Renovate Union Station 7.000
Intermodal
Transportation Center
in Worcester...........
99. Oregon....................... Construct bike path 0.750
paralleling 42nd Street
to link with existing
bike path, Springfield.
100. California.................. Improve streets and 0.907
related bicycle lane in
Oak Park, Ventura Co...
101. California.................. Construct Arbor Vitae 3.500
Street improvements,
Inglewood..............
102. Mississippi................. Refurbish Satartia 0.500
Bridge, Yazoo City.....
103. Missouri.................... Upgrade Route 169 14.000
between Smithville and
north of I-435, Clay
Co.....................
104. Illinois.................... Upgrade U.S. 45 between 5.000
Eldorado and Harrisburg
105. Michigan.................... Replace Chevrolet Ave. 1.800
bridge in Genesee Co...
106. Connecticut................. Reconstruct I-84, 9.470
Hartford...............
107. Massachusetts............... Improve safety and 2.600
traffic operations on
Main and Green Streets,
Mellrose...............
108. Michigan.................... Design and ROW 1.500
acquisition for
``Intertown South''
route of US 31 bypass,.
109. Illinois.................... Undertake improvements 1.000
to Campus
Transportation System..
110. California.................. Improve streets in 1.100
Canoga Park and Reseda
areas, Los Angeles.....
111. Texas....................... Construct US Rt. 67 7.000
Corridor through San
Angelo.................
112. Illinois.................... Upgrade Bishop Ford 1.500
Expressway/142nd St.
interchange............
113. Texas....................... Construct Galveston 0.730
Island Causeway
Expansion project,
Galveston..............
114. California.................. Reconstruct Harbor Blvd./ 2.000
SR22 Interchange, City
of Garden Grove........
115. Michigan.................... Undertake capital 10.000
improvements to
facilitate traffic
between Lansing and....
116. Virginia.................... Construct Main Street 8.000
Station in Richmond....
117. New York.................... Reconstruct Houston 2.000
Street between Avenue B
to the West Side
Highway, New York City.
118. North Carolina.............. Upgrade US 158 3.000
(including bypasses of
Norlina, Macon and
Littleton) in Halifax
and Warren Counties....
119. New York.................... Construct access road 3.000
and entranceway
improvments to airport
in Niagara Falls.......
120. New Jersey.................. Upgrade Baldwin Ave. 4.000
intersection to
facilitate access to
waterfront and ferry,
Weehawken..............
121. Massachusetts............... Undertake vehicular and 2.080
pedestrian movement
improvments within
Central Business
District of Foxborough.
122. California.................. Construct I-680HOV lanes 7.000
between Marina Vista
toll plaza to North
Main Street, Martinez
to Walnut Creek........
123. Michigan.................... Improvements to Card 1.300
Road between 21 mile
road and 23 mile road
in Macomb Co...........
124. Michigan.................... Upgrade (all weather) on 1.700
US 2, US 41, and M 35..
125. Oregon...................... Relocate and rebuild 1.600
intersection of Highway
101 and Highway 105,
Clatsop Co.............
126. New York.................... Undertake Linden Place 7.000
reconstruction project,
Queens.................
127. Texas....................... Construct Houston Street 5.500
Viaduck project in
Dallas.................
128. Iowa........................ Improve US 65/IA 5 5.000
interchange, Polk Co...
129. Texas....................... Construct segment 16.000
located south of U.S.
209 in Travis County of
a bypass to I-35 known
as SH-130 only on a
route running east of
Decker Lake............
130. Illinois.................... Rehabilitate Timber 0.140
Bridge over Little
Muddy River and
approach roadway, Perry
Co.....................
131. Connecticut................. Reconstruct cross road 2.000
over I-95, Waterford...
132. Minnesota................... Construct pedestrian 0.600
overpass on Highway
169, Mille Lacs
Reservation............
133. Hawaii...................... Upgrade Kaumualili 10.000
Highway................
134. Massachusetts............... Undertake improvements 3.000
to South Station
Intermodal Station.....
135. Illinois.................... Construct Marina Access 1.000
Road, East Chicago.....
136. Massachusetts............... Reconstruct North 1.000
Street, Fitchburg......
137. Virginia.................... Replace Shore Drive 4.000
Bridge over Petty Lake,
Norfolk................
138. New Jersey.................. Upgrade Urban University 9.700
Heights Connector,
Newark.................
139. California.................. Implement City of 5.800
Compton traffic signal
systems improvements...
140. California.................. Undertake San Pedro 1.500
Bridge project at SR 1,
Pacifica...............
141. Texas....................... Construct grade 16.000
separations in
Manchester.............
142. Minnesota................... Upgrade TH6 between 1.200
Talmoon to Bowstring
River..................
143. North Carolina.............. Construct US Route 17, 0.500
Elizabeth City Bypass..
144. Pennsylvania................ Undertake transportation 7.000
enhancement activities
within the Lehigh
Landing Area of the
Delaware and Lehigh
Canal National Heritage
Corridor...............
145. Texas....................... Upgrade State Highway 24 5.000
from Commerce to State
Highway 19 north of
Cooper.................
146. California.................. Reconstruct I-215 and 2.750
construct HOV lanes
between 2nd Street and
9th Street, San
Bernardino.............
147. California.................. Undertake safety 2.800
enhancements along
Monterey County
Railroad highway grade,
Monterey Co............
148. Michigan.................... Upgrade I-94 between M- 8.000
39 and I-69............
149. Michigan.................... Widen and make 5.000
improvements to Baldwin
and Joslyn Roads,
Oakland Co.............
150. Arkansas.................... Construct Geyer Springs 1.000
RR grade separation,
Little Rock............
151. New Jersey.................. Construct Route 4/17 8.500
interchange in Paramus.
152. West Virginia............... Upgrade US Rt. 35 35.000
between I-64 and South
Buffalo Bridge.........
153. Alabama..................... Construct enhancements 0.800
along 12th Street
between State Highway
11 and Baptist
Princeton Hospital,
Birmingham.............
154. Pennsylvania................ Construct Independence 6.000
Gateway Transportation
Center project,
Philadelphia...........
155. Minnesota................... Implement Trunk Highway 15.300
8 Corridor projects,
Chisago Co.............
156. Missouri.................... Construct extension of 0.800
bike path between
Soulard market area and
Riverfront bike trail
in St. Louis...........
157. Mississippi................. Upgrade Goose Pond 0.200
Subdivision Roads,
Tallahatchie Co........
[[Page H1934]]
158. Iowa........................ Construct controlled 14.925
access four-lane
highway between Des
Moines and Burlington..
159. Maryland.................... Construct improvements 3.200
to Route 50 interchange
with Columbia Pike,
Prince Georges Co......
160. Tennessee................... Construct Landport 8.000
regional transportation
hub, Nashville.........
161. California.................. Construct San Francisco 12.500
Regional Intermodal
Terminal...............
162. Texas....................... Relocate railroad tracks 6.000
to eliminate road
crossings, and provide
for the rehabilitation
of secondary roads
providing access to
various parts of the
Port and the
construction of new
connecting roads to
access new
infrastructure safely
and efficiently, Bro...
163. Massachusetts............... Replace Brightman Street 13.640
bridge in Fall River...
164. California.................. Construct Alameda 12.750
Corridor East project..
165. Georgia..................... Upgrade US Rt. 27....... 10.000
166. Michigan.................... Upgrade Davison Rd. 4.500
between Belsay and
Irish Roads, Genessee
Co.....................
167. Pennsylvania................ Upgrade PA 228 (Crows 7.200
Run Corridor)..........
168. Maine....................... Replace Singing Bridge 1.000
across Taunton Bay.....
169. California.................. Roadway improvements to 1.000
provide access to
Hansen Dam Recreation
Area in Los Angeles....
170. Pennsylvania................ Construct Rt. 819/Rt. 14.400
119 interchange between
Mt. Pleasant and
Scottdale..............
171. Massachusetts............... Reconstruct Huntington 4.000
Ave. in Boston.........
172. Ohio........................ Replace McCuffey Road 3.360
Bridge, Mahoning Co....
173. Michigan.................... Upgrade Rochester Road 12.300
between I-75 and
Torpsey St.............
174. California.................. Rehabilitate Artesia 4.000
Blvd...................
175. Illinois.................... Construct improvements 5.200
to McKinley Bridge over
Mississippi River with
terminus points in
Venice, Illinois, and
St. Louis, Missouri....
176. Maine....................... Construct I-295 4.500
connector, Portland....
177. Maine....................... Studies and planning for 4.000
reconstruction of East-
West Highway...........
178. Illinois.................... Reconstruct Claire 0.330
Blvd., Robbins.........
179. Pennsylvania................ Upgrade PA Route 21, 7.000
Fayette and Greene
Counties...............
180. California.................. Construct VC Campus 8.000
Parkway Loop System in
Merced.................
181. Massachusetts............... Replace deck of Chain 1.012
Bridge over Merrimack
River..................
182. New York.................... Construct Edgewater Road 12.000
Dedicated Truck Route..
183. Illinois.................... Construct Raney Street 4.400
Overpass in Effingham..
184. Pennsylvania................ Replace Masontown 7.000
bridge, Fayette and
Greene Counties........
185. Pennsylvania................ Upgrade US Rt. 22, 10.200
Chickory Mountain
section................
186. Michigan.................... Upgrade Lalie St., 0.360
Frenchtown Rd., and
Penshee Rd., Ironwood..
187. South Carolina.............. Upgrade US Highway 301 2.950
within Bamberg.........
188. Arizona..................... Construct Veterans' 15.000
Memorial overpass in
Pima Co................
189. Michigan.................... Replace Chalk Hills 0.400
Bridge over Menominee
River..................
190. Michigan.................... Construct intermodal 24.000
freight terminal in
Wayne Co...............
191. Oregon...................... Replace grade crossing 6.710
with separated crossing
and related
improvements, Linn Co..
192. California.................. Reconstruct State Route 10.000
81 (Sierra Ave.) and I-
10 Interchange in
Fontana................
193. California.................. Construct four-lane 3.000
highway facility
(Hollister Bypass), San
Benito Co..............
194. Maine....................... Construct new bridge 8.000
over Kennebee River
(Carlton Bridge
replacement)...........
195. Oregon...................... Upgrade I-5/Highway 217 7.000
interchange, Portland..
196. American Samoa.............. Upgrade village roads on 11.000
Tutilla Island,
American Samoa.........
197. New Jersey.................. Eliminate Berlin Circle 8.000
and signalize
intersection in Camden.
198. New York.................... Implement Melrose 1.000
Commons geographic
information system.....
199. Pennsylvania................ Reconstruct Lover 5.000
Interchange on I-70,
Washington Co..........
200. Virginia.................... Aquire land and 0.200
construct segment of
Daniel Boone Heritage
Trail (Kane Gap
section), Jefferson
National Forest........
201. California.................. Construct Sacramento 4.000
Intermodal Station.....
202. New York.................... Construct intermodal 7.250
facility in New
Rochelle, Westchester
Co.....................
203. New York.................... Reconstruct 79th Street 9.000
Traffic Circle, New
York City..............
204. Pennsylvania................ Extend North Delaware 5.200
Ave. between Lewis St.
and Orthodox St.,
Philadelphia...........
205. Missouri.................... Upgrade Route MO291 2.000
Connector..............
206. Pennsylvania................ Upgrade US Rt. 119 6.400
between Homer City and
Blairsville............
207. West Virginia............... Relocate segment of 8.000
Route 33 (Scott Miller
Bypass), Roane Co......
208. Missouri.................... Construct on intermodal 1.600
center at Missouri
Botanical Garden.......
209. Maine....................... Rehabilitate Piscataqua 5.250
River bridges, Kittery.
210. Wisconsin................... Upgrade STH 29 between 6.000
IH 94 and Chippewa
Falls..................
211. Illinois.................... Extend and reconstruct 5.690
roadways through
industrial corridor in
Alton..................
212. New Jersey.................. Construct road from the 3.000
Military Ocean Terminal
to the Port Jersey
Pier, Bayonne..........
213. Missouri.................... Relocate and reconstruct 40.000
Route 21 between Schenk
Rd. to Town of DeSoto..
214. Michigan.................... Improve drainage on 6th 0.150
Street in Menominee....
215. Pennsylvania................ Reconstruct and widen US 25.000
Rt. 222 to four-lane
expressway between
Lancaster/Berks County
line and Grings Mill
Rd. and construction of
Warren Street
extenstion in Reading..
216. New Jersey.................. Relocate and complete 8.000
construction of new
multi-modal facility,
Weehawken..............
217. Arkansas.................... Construct North Belt 7.000
Freeway................
218. California.................. Rehabilitate pavement 1.500
throughout Santa
Barbara Co.............
219. Virginia.................... Repair historic wooden 2.050
bridges along portion
of Virginia Creeper
Trail maintained by
Town of Abingdon.......
220. Arizona..................... Reconstruct I-19, East 10.000
Side Frontage Road,
Ruby Road to Rio Rico
Drive, Nogales.........
221. Massachusetts............... Conduct planning and 0.800
engineering for
connector route between
I-95 and industrial/
business park,
Attleboro..............
222. Georgia..................... Undertake Perimeter 0.100
Central Parkway
Overpass project and
Ashford Dunwoody
interchange
improvements at I-285,
DeKalb Co..............
223. Ohio........................ Construct Wilmington 5.000
Bypass, Wilmington.....
224. Illinois.................... Construct Western 0.925
Springs Pedestrian and
Tunnel project, Cook
Co.....................
225. Minnesota................... Upgrade Cass County Road 0.960
105 and Crow Wing
County Road 125, East
Gull Lake..............
226. Michigan.................... Upgrade H-58 within 5.600
Pictured Rocks National
Lakeshore..............
227. California.................. Reconstruct and widen 3.250
Mission Road, Alhambra.
228. Texas....................... Reconstruct and widen I- 8.000
35 between North of
Georgetown at Loop 418
to US Rt. 190..........
229. Florida..................... Construct access road to 1.000
St. Johns Ave.
Industrial Park........
230. Illinois.................... Intersection 1.740
improvements at 79th
and Stoney Island
Blvd., Chicago.........
231. Michigan.................... Construct Tawas Beach 2.200
Road/US 23 interchange
improvements, East
Tawas..................
232. Pennsylvania................ Construct Lawrenceville 10.000
Industrial Access Road.
[[Page H1935]]
233. Maryland.................... Construct intersection 3.000
improvements to
facilitate access to
NSA facility, Anne
Arundel Co.............
234. California.................. Upgrade Del Almo 5.000
Boulevard at I-405.....
235. Minnesota................... Reconstruct and replace 13.000
I-494 Wakota Bridge
from South St. Paul to
Newport, and approaches
236. Tennessee................... Construct separated 0.323
grade crossing at US 41
and US 231,
Murfreesboro...........
237. Michigan.................... Construct four-lane 3.700
boulevard from Dixie
Highway to Walton
Blvd., Oakland Co......
238. New York.................... Reconstruct Mamaroneck 4.500
Ave., White Plains,
Harrison and Mamaroneck
239. Texas....................... Upgrade FM 1764 between 3.000
FM 646 to State Highway
6......................
240. Texas....................... Construct ramp 8.000
connection between
Hammet St. to Highway
54 ramp to provide
access to I-10 in El
Paso...................
241. New York.................... Undertake studies, 32.000
planning, engineering,
design and construction
of a tunnel alternative
to reconstruction of
existing elvated
expressway (Gowanus
tunnel project)........
242. New York.................... Rehabilitate segment of 1.470
Henry Hudson Parkway
between Washington
Bridge and Dyckman St.,
New York City..........
243. Illinois.................... Construct bicycle/ 6.000
pedestrian trail
parallel to light rail
transit system in St.
Clair Co...............
244. Indiana..................... Extend SR 149 between SR 5.900
130 to US Rt. 30,
Valparaiso.............
245. Connecticut................. Construct Greenmanville 8.400
Ave. streetscape
extension, including
feasibility study, in
towns of Groton,
Stonington and Mystic..
246. Illinois.................... Reconstruct Broad Street 0.350
between Maple St. to
Sixth St., Evansville..
247. New York.................... Construct Mineola and 16.000
Hicksville Intermodal
Centers in Nassau Co...
248. Colorado.................... Construct intermodal 3.000
center at Stapleton,
Denver.................
249. New Jersey.................. Undertake improvements 16.000
associated with the
South Amboy Regional
Intermodal Center......
250. Michigan.................... Extend Trowbridge Road 2.500
from Harrison Rd. to
Red Cedar Rd...........
251. Massachusetts............... Construct improvements 2.400
to North Main St. in
Worcester..............
252. Tennessee................... Upgrade SR 96 between 3.600
Arno Rd. and SR 252,
Williamson Co..........
253. Louisiana................... Extend Howard Avenue to 8.000
Union Passenger
Terminal, New Orleans..
254. California.................. Construct bike path 3.000
between Sepulveda Basin
Recreation Area and
Warner Center/Canoga
Park, Los Angeles......
255. New York.................... Upgrade Route 17 between 16.800
Five Mile Point and
Occanum, Broome Co.....
256. Ohio........................ Upgrade US Rt. 33 5.000
between vicinity of
Haydenville to
Floodwood (Nelsonville
Bypass)................
257. Oregon...................... Construct passing lande 6.800
on Highway 58 between
Kitson Ridge Road and
Mile Post 47, Lane Co..
258. Michigan.................... Upgrade East Jordon 0.170
Road, Boyne City.......
259. California.................. Reconstruct Tennessee 1.000
Valley Bridge, Marin
Co.....................
260. Illinois.................... Improve access to 93rd 3.000
Street Station, Chicago
261. California.................. Construct I-580 13.200
interchange, Livermore.
262. California.................. Construct San Diego and 10.000
Arizona Eastern
Intermodal Yard........
263. Michigan.................... Apply ITS technologies 3.700
relating to traffic
control, Lansing.......
264. California.................. Construct Palisades 8.000
Bluff Stabilization
project, Santa Monica..
265. Rhode Island................ Upgrade pedestrian 0.100
traffic facilities,
Bristol................
266. Rhode Island................ Implement transportation 0.200
alternative relating to
Court Street Bridge,
Woonsocket.............
267. California.................. Upgrade Industrial 0.600
Parkway Southwest
between Whipple Rd. and
improved segment of the
parkway, Hayward.......
268. Missouri.................... Replace bridge on Route 1.000
92, Platte Co..........
269. Ohio........................ Upgrade Western Reserve 5.600
Road, Mahoning Co......
270. Ohio........................ Upgrade SR 124 between 5.000
Five Points and
Ravenswood Bridge,
Meigs Co...............
271. Illinois.................... Undertake streetscaping 1.150
between Damden and
Halsted................
272. Illinois.................... Construct improvements 3.500
to New Era Road,
Carbondale.............
273. New York.................... Construct access 12.000
improvements to Port of
Rochester Harbor,
Rochester..............
274. Rhode Island................ Reconstruct interchanges 0.445
on Rt. 116 between Rt.
146 and Ashton Viaduct,
Lincoln................
275. West Virginia............... Preliminary engineering 1.000
and design for access
road to proposed
location of regional
airport, Lincoln Co....
276. Massachusetts............... Upgrade Route 2 between 4.000
Philipston and
Greenfield.............
277. Ohio........................ Construct grade 14.000
separations at Front
Street and Bagley Road,
Berea..................
278. Pennsylvania................ Relocate PA 18 between 1.400
9th Ave. and 32nd St.,
Beaver Falls...........
279. California.................. Construct bike paths, 0.625
Thousand Oaks..........
280. Oregon...................... Construct right-of-way 1.282
improvements to provide
improved pedestrian
access to MAX light
rail, Gresham..........
281. Louisiana................... Reconstruct I-10 and 8.000
Ryan Street access
ramps and frontage
street improvements,
Lake Charles...........
282. California.................. Upgrade SR 92/El Camino 3.700
interchange, San Mateo.
283. Massachusetts............... Construct Housatonic- 4.000
Hoosic bicycle network.
284. Texas....................... Upgrade SH 30, 2.500
Huntsville.............
285. Connecticut................. Replace bridges over 6.550
Harbor Brook, Meriden..
286. Indiana..................... Extend SR 149 between SR 1.000
130 to US Rt. 30.......
287. West Virginia............... Construct improvements 0.200
on WV 9 including
turning lane and
signalization, Berkely
Co.....................
288. Arkansas.................... Upgrade Highway 63, 12.000
Marked Tree to Lake
David..................
289. Dist. of Col................ Conduct studies and 1.000
related activities
pertaining to proposed
intermodal
transportation Center,
D.C....................
290. Ohio........................ Undertake improvements 0.900
to Valley Street,
Dayton.................
291. Texas....................... Construct US Expressway 7.500
77/83 interchange,
Harlingen..............
292. Texas....................... Construct Loop 197, 4.290
Galveston..............
293. Minnesota................... Upgrade Highway 53 2.000
between Virginia and
Cook...................
294. California.................. Upgrade intersection of 10.000
Folsom Blvd. and Power
Inn Rd., Sacramento....
295. California.................. Reconstruct Grand Avenue 0.500
between Elm Street and
Halcyon Road, Arroyo
Grande.................
296. New York.................... Construct intermodal 10.250
facility in Yonkers,
Westchester Co.........
297. Massachusetts............... Construct bike path 1.700
between Rt. 16
(Everett) to Lynn
Oceanside..............
298. Oregon...................... Design and engineering 0.300
for intermodal
transportation center,
Astoria................
299. California.................. Construct Port of 8.000
Oakland intermodal
terminal...............
300. Indiana..................... Upgrade County roads in 7.000
LaPorte County.........
301. Alabama..................... Replace bridge over 3.000
Tombigbee River,
Naheola................
302. Virginia.................... Construct access road 1.700
and related facilities
for Fisher Peak
Mountain Music
Interpretive Center on
Blue Ridge Parkway.....
303. Colorado.................... Reconstruct and upgrade 13.000
I-70/I-25 Interchange,
Denver.................
[[Page H1936]]
304. Alabama..................... Construct improvements 1.000
to 41st Street between
1st Ave. South and
Airport Highway,
Birmingham.............
305. New York.................... Replace Route 28 bridge 3.200
over NY State Thruway,
Ulster Co..............
306. Minnesota................... Reconstruct SE Main Ave./ 4.000
I-94 interchange,
Moorhead...............
307. Indiana..................... Construct Gary Marina 10.000
access road (Buffington
Harbor)................
308. Washington.................. Undertake SR 166 slide 6.500
repair.................
309. Oregon...................... Construct bike path 0.230
between Main Street/
Highway 99 in Cottage
Grove to Row River
Trail, Cottage Grove...
310. Minnesota................... Upgrade 10th Street 1.500
South, St. Cloud.......
311. Missouri.................... Construct Grand Ave. 2.200
viaduct over Mill Creek
Valley in St. Louis....
312. Missouri.................... Construct Strother Rd./I- 8.000
470 interchange,
Jackson Co.............
313. Wisconsin................... Upgrade U.S. 51 between 5.000
I-90/94 to northern
Wisconsin..............
314. Virginia.................... Construct trailhead and 0.250
related facilities and
restore old Whitetop
Train Station at
terminus of Virginia
Creeper Trail adjacent
to Mount Rogers
National Recreation
Area...................
315. Oregon...................... Reconstruct Lovejoy 7.718
ramp, Portland.........
316. Michigan.................... Rehabilitate Lincoln 0.170
St., Negaunee..........
317. New York.................... Construct full access 6.000
controlled expressway
along NY Route 17 at
Parkville, Sullivan Co.
318. Texas....................... Construct extension of 1.000
Bay Area Blvd..........
319. California.................. Construct pedestrian 0.500
boardwalk between
terminus of Pismo
Promenade at Pismo
Creek and Grande Avenue
in Gover Beach.........
320. Michigan.................... Construct deceleration 0.020
lane in front of 4427
Wilder Road, Bay City..
321. Massachusetts............... Construct Arlington to 1.000
Boston Bike Path.......
322. Virginia.................... Undertake access 2.000
improvements for
Freemason Harbor
Development Initiative,
Norfolk................
323. Oregon...................... Construct bike path 0.808
along Willamette River,
Corvallis..............
324. California.................. Upgrade Highway 99 14.300
between State Highway
70 and Lincoln Rd.,
Sutter Co..............
325. Texas....................... Construct US 77/83 3.000
Expressway extension,
Brownsville............
326. Ohio........................ Undertake improvements 2.080
to open Federal Street
to traffic, Youngstown.
327. Massachusetts............... Upgrade I-495 14.480
interchange 17 and
related improvements
including along Route
140....................
328. Indiana..................... Undertake safety and 2.000
mobility improvements
involving street and
street crossings and
Conrail line, Elkhart..
329. Illinois.................... Reconstruct interchange 34.265
at I-294, 127th St. and
Cicero Ave. with new
ramps to the Tri-State
Tollway, Alsip.........
330. Minnesota................... Construct TH 1 east of 0.240
Northome including
bicycle/pedestrian
trail..................
331. Missouri.................... Construct Jefferson Ave. 11.000
viaduct over Mill Creek
Valley in St. Louis....
332. Ohio........................ Construct connector road 5.680
between North Road and
SR46, Trumbull Co......
333. Oregon...................... Repair bridge over Rogue 10.000
River, Gold Beach......
334. Tennessee................... Construct I-40/SR 155 9.000
interchange, Davidson..
335. Pennsylvania................ Upgrade I-95 between 29.000
Lehigh Ave. and
Columbia Ave. and
improvements to Girard
Ave./I-95 interchange,
Philadelphia...........
336. Massachusetts............... Construct Hyannis 3.200
Intermodal
Transportation Center,
Hyannis................
337. New York.................... Reconstruct 127th Street 1.470
viaduct, New York City.
338. California.................. Construct bicycle path, 0.136
Westlake Village.......
339. California.................. Upgrade Osgood Road 2.000
between Washington
Blvd. and South Grimmer
Blvd., Freemont........
340. Tennessee................... Upgrade Briley Parkway 9.000
between I-40 and
Opreyland..............
341. Minnesota................... Construct Gunflint 0.800
Realignment project,
Grand Marais...........
342. Maryland.................... Construct Baltimore 8.000
Washington Parkway to
Route 197, Prince
Georges Co.............
343. Virgin Islands.............. Construct bypass around 8.000
Christiansted..........
344. Dist. of Col................ Rehabilitate Theodore 10.000
Roosevelt Memorial
Bridge.................
345. California.................. Construct Los Angeles 8.750
County Gateway Cities
NHS Access.............
346. South Carolina.............. Construct pedestrian 0.800
walkway and safety
improvements along SC
277, Richland Co.......
347. Ohio........................ Upgrade US Rt. 35 5.000
between vicinity of
Chillicothe to Village
of Richmond Dale.......
348. California.................. Extend 7th St. between F 2.000
St. and North 7th St.,
Sacramento.............
349. Illinois.................... Construct I-64/North 4.800
Greenmount Rd.
interchange, St. Clair
Co.....................
350. Texas....................... Construct 6th and 7th 0.500
Street overpass over
railroad yard,
Brownsville............
351. Iowa........................ Construct four-lane 11.100
expressway between Des
Moines and Marshalltown
352. Michigan.................... Construct route 3.600
improvements along
Washington Ave. between
Janes Ave. to Johnson
St. and East Genesee
Ave. between Saginaw
River and Janes Ave.,
Saginaw................
353. Minnesota................... Construct pedestrian 0.707
bridge over TH 169 in
Elk River..............
354. Michigan.................... Reconstruct I-75/M-57 14.000
interchange............
355. Virginia.................... Upgrade Danville Bypass 4.000
in Pittsylvania........
356. Massachusetts............... Reconstruct Route 126 4.700
and replace bridge
spanning Route 9, Town
of Framingham..........
357. Alabama..................... Construct improvements 0.900
to 19th Street between
I-59 and Tuxedo
Junction, Birmingham...
358. Ohio........................ Restore Main and First 0.450
Streets to two-way
traffic, Miamisburg....
359. Texas....................... Upgrade FM225, 4.000
Nacogdoches............
360. California.................. Construct railroad at- 0.500
grade crossings, San
Leandro................
361. Pennsylvania................ Improve walking and 2.800
biking trails between
Easton and Lehigh Gorge
State Park within the
Delaware and Lehigh
Canal National Heritage
Corridor...............
362. Massachusetts............... Environmental studies, 2.000
preliminary engineering
and design of North-
South Connector in
Pittsfield to improve
access to I-90.........
363. Oregon...................... Upgrade Naito Parkway, 1.500
Portland...............
364. Pennsylvania................ Make safety improvements 7.000
on PA Rt. 61
(Dusselfink Safety
Project) between Rt.
183 in Cressona and SR
0215 in Mount Carbon...
365. New York.................... Capital improvements for 14.000
the car float
operations in Brooklyn,
New York, for the New
York City Economic
Development Corp.......
366. California.................. Construct Backbone Trail 0.200
through Santa Monica
National Recreation
Area...................
367. Massachusetts............... Reconstruct Greenfield 2.500
Road, Montague.........
368. North Dakota................ Upgrade U.S. Route 52 2.400
between Donnybrook and
US Route 2.............
369. Pennsylvania................ Construct Philadelphia 8.000
Intermodal Gateway
Project at 30th St.
Station................
370. Hawaii...................... Construct Kapaa Bypass.. 10.000
371. Missouri.................... Construct bike/ 0.800
pedestrian path between
Delmar Metrolink
Station and University
City loop business
district in St. Louis..
372. Hawaii...................... Replace Sand Island 1.000
tunnel with bridge.....
373. Missouri.................... Improve safety and 8.000
traffic flow on Rt. 13
through Clinton........
374. California.................. Construct improvements 0.368
to Moorpark/Highway 101
interchange, Bouchard/
Highway 101 interchange
and associated street
improvements, Thousand
Oaks...................
[[Page H1937]]
375. Texas....................... Construct extension of 1.800
West Austin Street (FM
2609) between Old Tyler
Road and Loop 224,
Nacogdoches............
376. Washington.................. Construct passenger 5.000
ferry to serve
Southworth-Seattle.....
377. Hawaii...................... Construct interchange at 20.000
junction of proposed
North-South road and H-
1......................
378. South Carolina.............. Construct I-95/I-26 12.000
interchange, Orangeburg
Co.....................
379. Ohio........................ Upgrade SR 46 between 3.520
Mahoning Ave. and Salt
Springs Rd., Mahoning
and Trumbull Counties..
380. California.................. Rehabilitate Highway 1 0.500
in Guadalupe...........
381. Massachusetts............... Construct Great River 2.000
Bridge improvements,
Westfield..............
382. Maine....................... Studies and planning for 1.500
extension of I-95......
383. Michigan.................... Widen Arch St., Negaunee 0.080
384. Texas....................... Construct Concord Road 8.500
Widening project,
Beaumont...............
385. Massachusetts............... Construct accessibility 4.000
improvments to Charles
Street T Station,
Boston.................
386. Oregon...................... Purchase and install 4.500
emitters and receiving
equipment to facilitate
movement of emergency
and transit vehicles at
key arterial
intersections, Portland
387. Pennsylvania................ Construct bicycle and 0.180
pedestrian facility
between Boston Bridge
and McKee Point Park,
Allegheny Co...........
388. Oregon...................... Restore transportation 0.700
connection between
Wauna, Astoria and Port
of Astoria.............
389. Pennsylvania................ Construct Wexford I-79/ 1.100
SR 910 Interchange,
Allegheny Co...........
390. Minnesota................... Undertake improvements 5.200
to Hennepin County
Bikeway................
391. New Jersey.................. Construct New Jersey 3.000
Exit 13A Flyover
(extension of Kapkowsk
Rd. to Trumbull St.)...
392. Texas....................... Implement `Hike and 8.000
Bike' trail program,
Houston................
393. Puerto Rico................. Upgrade PR 30 between PR 8.000
203 in Gurabo to PR 31
in Juncos..............
394. Illinois.................... Planning, engineering 10.310
and first phase
construction of beltway
connector, Decatur.....
395. Texas....................... Extend Texas State 4.900
Highway 154 between US
80W and State Highway
43S....................
396. Illinois.................... Construct bypass of 0.820
historic stone bridge,
Maeystown..............
397. Ohio........................ Rehabilitate Martin 2.000
Luther King, Jr.
Bridge, Toledo.........
398. Missouri.................... Upgrade Little Blue 3.000
Expressway, Jackson Co.
399. Puerto Rico................. Upgrade PR 3 between Rio 8.000
Grande and Fajardo.....
400. Illinois.................... Reconstruct Cossitt Ave. 1.485
in LaGrange............
401. Pennsylvania................ Facilitate coordination 4.000
of transportation
systems at intersection
of 46th and Market, and
enhance access and
related measures to
area facilities
including purchase of
vans for reverse
commutes, Philadelphia.
402. Connecticut................. Upgrade bridge over 0.450
Naugatuck River,
Ansonia................
403. Pennsylvania................ Construct access road to 6.400
Hastings Industrial
Park, Cambria Co.......
404. Pennsylvania................ Construct Mon-Fayette 20.000
Expressway between
Union Town and
Brownsville............
405. Washington.................. Reconstruct I-5 1.500
interchange, City of
Lacy...................
406. Dist. of Col................ Construct bicycle and 10.000
pedestrian walkway
(Metropolitan Branch
Trail), Union Station
to Silver Spring.......
407. New Jersey.................. Upgrade I-78 interchange 6.300
and West Peddie St.
ramps, Newark..........
408. Tennessee................... Implement ITS 2.800
technologies, Nashville
409. Connecticut................. Construct bicycle and 1.200
pedestrian walkway,
Town of East Hartford..
410. North Carolina.............. Upgrade Highway 55 23.000
between US 64 and State
Route 1121, Wake and
Durham Counties........
411. Virginia.................... Upgrade Route 501 in 1.000
Bedford County.........
412. Georgia..................... Construct multi-modal 16.000
passenger terminal,
Atlanta................
413. Virginia.................... Renovate Greater 5.000
Richmond Transit
transportation
facility, Richmond.....
414. Michigan.................... Upgrade Van Dyke Road 3.700
between M-59 and Utica
City limits............
415. Pennsylvania................ Design, engineer, ROW 14.000
acquisition and
construct the Luzerne
County Community
College Road between
S.R. 2002 and S.R. 3004
one-mile west of Center
Street through S.R.
2008 in the vicinity of
Prospect Street and the
Luzerne County
Community College......
416. Texas....................... Construct two-lane 4.850
parallel bridge, State
Highway 146, FM 517 to
vicinity of Dickinson
Bayou..................
417. North Dakota................ Upgrade US Rt. 52, 2.800
Kenmare to Donnybrook..
418. Minnesota................... Improve roads, Edge of 6.000
Wilderness, Grand
Rapids to Effie........
419. Virginia.................... Construct access road, 0.225
walking trail and
related facilities for
the Nicholsville
Center, Scott Co.......
420. Maryland.................... Construct pedestrian and 1.800
bicycle path between
Druid Hill Park and
Penn Station, Baltimore
421. Illinois.................... Construct access road to 1.500
Melvin Price Locks and
Dam Visitors Center,
Madison Co.............
422. New York.................... Install advance traffic 4.000
management system along
Cross County Parkway
between Saw Mill River
Parkway and Hutchinson
River Parkway..........
423. South Carolina.............. Construct I-77/SC #S-20- 7.000
30 interchange,
Fairfield Co...........
424. Pennsylvania................ Rehabilitate Jefferson 1.500
Heights Bridge, Penn
Hills..................
425. Oregon...................... Construct I-205/ 20.000
Sunnyside/Sunnybrook
interchange and related
extrension road,
Clackamas Co...........
426. New York.................... Conduct Trans-Hudson 5.000
Freight Improvement
MIS, New York City.....
427. Illinois.................... Construct Marion Street 2.000
multi-modal project in
Village of Oak Park....
428. Pennsylvania................ Upgrade roadway in the 20.200
Princeton/Cottman I-95
interchange and related
improvements,
Philadelphia...........
429. California.................. Extend I-10 HOV lanes, 2.940
Los Angeles............
430. Massachusetts............... Rehabilitate Union 16.000
Station in Springfield.
431. California.................. Upgrade Greenville Rd. 6.800
and construct railroad
underpass, Livermore...
432. Pennsylvania................ Extend Martin Luther 6.000
King, Jr. East Busway
to link with Mon-
Fayette................
433. Michigan.................... Construct improvements 1.200
to Linden Rd. between
Maple Ave. and Pierson
Rd., Genessee Co.......
434. Texas....................... Construct Titus County 2.500
West Loop, Mount
Pleasant...............
435. New York.................... Upgrade Riverside Drive 1.470
between 97th St. and
Tiemann, New York City.
436. Florida..................... Construct interchange at 11.300
21st Street to provide
access to Talleyrand
Marine Terminal........
437. Minnesota................... Upgrade CSAH 116 north 1.600
of SCAH 88 in Ely......
438. New York.................... Rehabilitate Queens 8.000
Blvd./Sunnyside Yard
Bridge, New York City..
439. Oregon...................... Upgrade I-5, Salem...... 6.592
440. California.................. Install call boxes along 0.288
Highway 166 between
intersection with
Highway 101 and
junction with Highway
33.....................
441. Arkansas.................... Construct US 63 2.000
interchange with
Washington Ave. and
Highway 63B............
442. Virginia.................... Upgrade Rt. 600 to 8.000
facilitate access
between I-81 and Mount
Rogers National
Recreation Area........
[[Page H1938]]
443. Pennsylvania................ Construct bicycle and 0.620
pedestrian facility
between Washington's
Landing and Millvale
Borough, Allegheny Co..
444. New Jersey.................. Conduct Route 46 32.500
Corridor Improvement
Project with of the
amount provided,
$11,500,000 for the
Route 46/Riverview
Drive Interchange
reconstruction project,
$16,900,000 for the
Route 46/Van Houton
Avenue reconstruction
project, and $4,100,000
for the Route..........
445. Virginia.................... Construct Southeastern 4.000
Parkway and Greenbelt
in Virginia Beach......
446. Michigan.................... Upgrade Hill Road 3.000
corridor between I-75
to Dort Highway,
Genesee Co.............
447. Louisiana................... Upgrade Lapalco Blvd. 8.000
between Destrehan Ave.
and Lapalco Blvd.,
Jefferson Parish.......
448. California.................. Upgrade South Higuera 0.900
Street, San Luis Obispo
449. Rhode Island................ Reconstruct Harris Ave., 2.000
Woonsocket.............
450. California.................. Construct Olympic 5.000
Training Center Access
Road, Chula Vista......
451. Alabama..................... Construct bridge over 10.000
Tennessee River
connecting Muscle
Shoals and Florence....
452. North Carolina.............. Construct I-540 from 13.000
east of NC Rt. 50 to
east of US Rt. 1 in
Wake Co................
453. Oregon...................... Upgrade Murray Blvd. 5.000
including overpass
bridge, Millikan to
Terman.................
454. California.................. Planning, preliminary 2.000
engineering and design
for Etiwanda Ave./I-10
interchange, San
Bernardino Co..........
455. Arkansas.................... Upgrade US Rt. 412, 10.000
Mountain Home to
Missouri State line....
456. California.................. Upgrade access road to 1.000
Mare Island............
457. California.................. Construct Prunedale 2.200
Bypass segment of U.S.
101, Monterey Co.......
458. Illinois.................... Rehabilitate and upgrade 2.362
87th Street Station to
improve intermodal
access.................
459. Wisconsin................... Upgrade US Rt. 10 8.000
between Waupaca to US
Rt. 41.................
460. Minnesota................... Construct railroad 0.200
crossing connecting
University of MN with
City of Crookston......
461. Wisconsin................... Construct Eau Claire 8.000
Bypass project.........
462. Illinois.................... Resurface 63rd Street 0.750
from Western Avenue to
Wallace, Chicago.......
463. New York.................... Reconstruct Chili Ave. 1.600
between W. City Line
and West Ave.,
Rochester..............
464. West Virginia............... Construct I-81 5.300
interchange,
Martinsburg............
465. Texas....................... Construct transportation 5.000
improvements as part of
redevelopment of Kelly
AFB, San Antonio.......
466. Oregon...................... Construct roundabout at 0.400
intersection of Highway
101 and Highway 202,
Clatsop Co.............
467. Oregon...................... Construct bike path 0.100
improvements between
W.D. Street to south
parking lot in Island
Park and bicycle/
pedestrian facility
between Island Park
path to the Willamalane
Senior Center,
Springfield............
468. Ohio........................ Undertake multimodal 2.750
transportation
improvements, Dayton...
469. Massachusetts............... Upgrade Rt. 3 between 8.200
Rt. 128/I-95 to
Massachusetts and New
Hampshire State Line...
470. Texas....................... Conduct MIS for 1.000
Multimodal Downtown
Improvement Project,
San Antonio............
471. California.................. Construct improvements 5.790
to Route 101/Lost Hills
Road interchange,
Calabasas..............
472. Florida..................... Construct John Young 8.000
Parkway/I-4 interchange
473. Texas....................... Reconstruct FM 364 4.800
between Humble Road and
I-10, Beaumont.........
474. Texas....................... Construct Austin to San 9.500
Antonio Corridor.......
475. Texas....................... Construct East Loop, 1.000
Brownsville............
476. Illinois.................... Upgrade South Lake Shore 7.800
Drive between 47th and
Hayes, Chicago.........
477. Alabama..................... Construct Finley Ave. 3.900
Extension East project.
478. Tennessee................... Implement middle 9.500
Tennessee alternative
transportation system
along the Stones River.
479. Hawaii...................... Construct improvements 2.000
to H-1 between the
Waiawa interchange and
the Halawa interchange.
480. New Jersey.................. Upgrade Industrial Road 3.000
between Carteret and
Woodbridge Township....
481. Minnesota................... Restore MN 1.000
Transportation
facility, Jackson
Street Roundhouse, St.
Paul...................
482. Hawaii...................... Construct Kawahihee 1.000
Bypass.................
483. Georgia..................... Upgrade U.S. Rt. 19 5.000
between Albany and
Thomaston..............
484. Michigan.................... Upgrade M-15 from I-75 0.500
north to the Genesee
County line............
485. Georgia..................... Upgrade Lithonia 0.500
Industrial Boulevard,
DeKalb Co..............
486. Michigan.................... Upgrade Walton Blvd. 2.000
between Dixie and
Sashabaw, Oakland Co...
487. Kentucky.................... Reconstruct Liberty and 8.000
Todd Roads, Lexington..
488. North Carolina.............. Construct Charlotte 16.000
Western Outer Loop
freeway, Mecklenburg
Co.....................
489. Tennessee................... Construct Crosstown 3.200
Greenway/Bikeway,
Springfield............
490. North Carolina.............. Construct segment of I- 2.000
74 between Maxton
Bypass and NC 710,
Robeson Co.............
491. Pennsylvania................ Construct enhancements 4.000
and related measures,
including purchase of
vans for reverse
commutes, to intermodal
facility located at
intersection of 52nd
and Lancaster Ave.,
Philadelphia...........
492. Illinois.................... Undertake Industrial 4.350
Transportation
Improvement Program in
Chicago................
493. Illinois.................... Resurface S. Chicago 1.060
Ave. From 71st to 95th
Streets, Chicago.......
494. Texas....................... Upgrade US Rt. 59 16.000
between US 281 to I-37.
495. Tennessee................... Construct Stones River 7.200
Greenway, Davidson.....
496. South Carolina.............. Construct Calhoun/ 10.000
Clarendon Causeway.....
497. Tennessee................... Construct U.S. 40 2.000
bypass, Madison Co.....
498. Mississippi................. Upgrade Land Fill Road, 1.000
Panola Co..............
499. Illinois.................... Construct elevated 1.200
walkway between Centre
Station and arena......
500. New Jersey.................. Construct interchange 10.000
improvements and
flyover ramps at I-80W
to Route D23N in
Passaic Co.............
501. Illinois.................... Construct new entrance 6.500
to Midway Airport
Terminal...............
502. North Dakota................ Construct Jamestown 4.800
bypass.................
503. Illinois.................... Resurface 95th St. 3.120
between Western Ave.
and Stony Island Blvd.,
Chicago................
504. Massachusetts............... Upgrade Rt. 9/Calvin 10.000
Coolidge Bridge, Hadley
505. Oregon...................... Acquire and rennovate 3.590
facility to serve as
multimodal
transportation center,
Eugene.................
506. Tennessee................... Upgrade SR 386 between 3.440
US 31 to the Gallatin
Bypass, Sumner Co......
507. American Samoa.............. Construct drainage 5.000
system improvements
associated with highway
construction on Tutilla
Island, American Samoa.
508. Ohio........................ Replace I-280 bridge 24.000
over Maumee River,
Toledo area............
509. Pennsylvania................ Improve access to 2.268
McKeesport-Duquesne
Bridge.................
510. Wisconsin................... Upgrade State Highway 29 12.000
between Green Bay and
Wausau.................
511. California.................. Construct State Route 25.000
905 between I-805 and
the Otay Mesa Border
Crossing, San Diego Co.
512. California.................. Undertake median 1.000
improvements along E.
14th St., San Leandro..
513. Virginia.................... Conduct preliminary 4.000
engineering on I-73
between Roanoke and
Virginia/North Carolina
State line.............
[[Page H1939]]
514. Illinois.................... Upgrade industrial park 4.500
road in Village of
Sauget.................
515. Massachusetts............... Construct TeleCom 7.000
Boulevard with access
via Commercial Street
and Corporation Way to
the west of Malden
River and with access
via Santilli Highway to
the east of the river
in Everett, Medord and
Malden.................
516. Rhode Island................ Construct Blackstone 3.455
River Bikeway..........
517. Oregon...................... Construct intermodal 0.600
station, Clackamas Co..
518. Illinois.................... Rehabilitate Western 0.825
Springs Arterial
Roadway, Cook Co.......
519. California.................. Implement enhanced 2.000
traffic access between
I-10, area hospitals
and southern portion of
Loma Linda.............
520. Maine....................... Replace Ridlonville 1.500
Bridge across
Androscoggin River.....
521. New York.................... Capital improvements for 5.000
the Red Hook Barge in
NY/NJ for the Port
Authority of NY/NJ.....
522. Oregon...................... Construct bike path 1.500
between Terry Street
and Greenhill Road,
Eugene.................
523. Texas....................... Conduct pipeline express 1.500
study through Texas
Transportation
Institute (A&M
University)............
524. North Carolina.............. Construct segment of 2.700
Raleigh Outer Loop,
Wake Co................
525. North Carolina.............. Construct segment of new 16.000
freeway, including
right-of-way
acquisition, between
East of US 401 to I-95,
and bridge over Cape
Fear River.............
526. Kentucky.................... Construct Newton Pike 8.000
Extension between West
Main St. to South
Limestone in Lexington.
527. Indiana..................... Extend SR 149 between SR 4.000
130 to US Rt. 30,
Valparaiso.............
528. California.................. Implement safety and 0.650
congestion mitigation
improvements along
Pacific Coast Highway,
Malibu.................
529. Maryland.................... Upgrade I-95/I-495 4.800
interchange at Ritchie
Marlboro Rd., Prince
Georges................
530. Michigan.................... Construct arterial 0.500
connector between US41/
M28 and Co. Rd. 480,
Marquette..............
531. Ohio........................ Construct SR 711 25.000
connector four-lane
limited access highway
in Mahoning Co.........
532. Illinois.................... Study for new bridge 1.400
over Mississippi River
with terminus points in
St. Clair County and
St. Louis, MO..........
533. Michigan.................... Upgrade Three Mile Road, 1.000
Grand Traverse.........
534. Wisconsin................... Construct Abbotsford 6.000
Bypass.................
535. North Carolina.............. Upgrade US 13/NC11 2.000
(including Bethel
bypass) in Pitt and
Edgecombe..............
536. New Jersey.................. Construct highway 5.000
connector between
Interstate Route 1&9
(Tonelle Ave.) and the
New Jersey Turnpike at
Secaucus Intermodal
Transfer Rail Station..
537. Iowa........................ Reconstruct US Highway 2.500
218 between 7th and
20th Streets including
center turn lane from
Hubenthal Place to
Carbide Lane, Keokuk...
538. Minnesota................... Construct grade crossing 1.800
improvments, Morrison
County.................
539. California.................. Upgrade Bristol St., 7.000
Santa Ana..............
540. Illinois.................... Undertake access 3.750
improvements to U.S.
Rt. 41, Chicago........
541. Illinois.................... Reconstruct Dixie 0.494
Highway, Harvey........
542. Minnesota................... Upgrade CSAH between 1.200
TH324 and Snake River..
543. California.................. Rehabilitate B Street 0.700
between Foothill Blvd.
and Kelly St., Hayward.
544. Illinois.................... Construct improvements 3.500
to Pleasant Hill Road,
Carbondale.............
545. Mississippi................. Construct access 1.000
improvments to various
roads, Humphreys Co....
546. Michigan.................... Construct safety 1.000
enhancements at rail
crossings, Linden,
Fenton, Swartz Creek
and Gaines.............
547. Maryland.................... Implement city-wide 17.700
signal control system
replacements and
improvements in
Baltimore..............
548. Michigan.................... Construct road drainage 0.240
improvements, Suttons
Bay Village............
549. West Virginia............... Upgrade Route 10 between 50.000
Logan and Man..........
550. California.................. Construct Gene Autry Way/ 9.000
I-5 Access project,
Anaheim................
551. Tennessee................... Reconstruct US 79 4.000
between Milan and
McKenzie...............
552. Illinois.................... Reconstruct Midlothian 0.288
Turnpike, Robbins......
553. California.................. Construct connector 11.500
between I-5 and SR 113
and reconstruct I-5
interchange with Road
102, Woodland..........
554. Massachusetts............... Reconstruct Route 2/ 3.600
Jackson Road
interchange, Lancaster.
555. California.................. Construct Airport Blvd. 8.000
interchange in Salinas.
556. California.................. Construct Third Street 12.500
South Bay Basin Bridge,
San Francisco..........
557. Minnesota................... Reconstruct CSAH 48 0.320
extension, Brainerd/
Baxter.................
558. Florida..................... Upgrade U.S. 319 between 4.000
Four Points and Oak
Ridge Road, Tallahasee.
559. Connecticut................. Reconstruct I-84 between 6.000
vicinity of Route 69 in
Waterbury and Marion
Avenue in Southington..
560. California.................. Upgrade Riverside Avenue/ 0.925
I-10 interchange,
Rialto.................
561. Illinois.................... Consolidate rail tracks 1.500
and eliminate grade
crossings as part of
Gateway Intermodal
Terminal access project
562. Pennsylvania................ Construct Robinson Town 2.700
Centre intermodal
facility...............
563. North Carolina.............. Construct bridge over 1.800
Chockoyotte Creek in
Halifex Co.............
564. Texas....................... Investigate strategies 0.250
to reduce congestion
and facilitate access
at the international
border crossing in Roma
565. Hawaii...................... Construct Waimea Bypass. 1.000
566. Oregon...................... Reconstruct I-5/Beltline 3.000
Road interchange.......
567. Ohio........................ Construct Intermodal 2.040
Industrial Park in
Wellsville.............
568. Ohio........................ Upgrade Route 82, 7.000
Strongsville...........
569. California.................. Construct pedestrian 0.200
promenade, Pismo Beach.
570. Dist. of Col................ Conduct MIS of light 1.000
rail corridors, D.C....
571. California.................. Upgrade I-680 Corridor, 10.000
Alameda Co.............
572. Ohio........................ Construct new bridge 2.000
over Muskingum River
and highway approaches,
Washington County......
573. Massachusetts............... Construct improvements 12.000
along Route 18 to
provide for access to
waterfront and downtown
areas, New Bedford.....
574. Minnesota................... Upgrade Cross-Range 6.000
Expressway between
Coleraine to CSAH 7....
575. Illinois.................... Construct transportation 1.500
improvements to
Industrial Viaduct,
Chicago................
576. Pennsylvania................ Construct American 4.000
Parkway Bridge project
in Allentown...........
577. Pennsylvania................ Replace Grant Street 2.400
Bridge, New Castle.....
578. Illinois.................... Extend South 74th 0.500
Street, Belleville.....
579. California.................. Construct Phase 3 of 6.000
Alameda Street project,
Los Angeles............
580. New York.................... Rehabilitate Third 1.470
Avenue Bridge over
Harlem River, New York
City...................
581. West Virginia............... Upgrade Route 2 in 25.000
Cabell Co., including
the relocation of Route
2 to provide for a
connection to I-64
(Merrick Creek
Connector).............
[[Page H1940]]
582. Minnesota................... Construct Shepard Road/ 3.000
Upper Landing
interceptor, St. Paul..
583. Illinois.................... Construct improvements 1.300
to segment of Town
Creek Road, Jackson Co.
584. Minnesota................... Complete construction of 5.000
Forest Highway 11, Lake
Co.....................
585. Ohio........................ Construct access and 4.900
related improvements to
Downtown Riverfront
Area, Dayton...........
586. Minnesota................... Replace Sauk Rapids 10.300
Bridge over Mississippi
River, Stearns and
Benton Counties........
587. Ohio........................ Replace Jacobs Road 2.000
Bridge, Mahoning Co....
588. North Carolina.............. Make improvements to I- 3.200
95/SR-1162 interchange
in Johnston Co.........
589. Oregon...................... Rehabilitate Broadway 10.000
Bridge in Portland.....
590. Minnesota................... Construct Trunk Highway 8.100
169 Causeway, Itasca
Co.....................
591. Minnesota................... Construct Cass County 0.240
Public Trails Corridors
592. Tennessee................... Construct park and ride 8.000
intermodal centers for
Nashville/Middle
Tennessee Commuter Rail
593. California.................. Construct bicycle path, 0.500
Calabasas..............
594. Mississippi................. Upgrade Hampton Lake 0.880
Road, Tallahatchie Co..
595. Michigan.................... Upgrade M.L. King Drive. 2.000
Genesee Co.............
596. Michigan.................... Facilitate access 1.000
between I-75 and Soo
Locks through road
reconstruction,
bikepath construction
and related
improvements, Sault
Ste. Marie.............
597. New York.................... Construct Midtown West 5.000
Intermodal Ferry
Terminal, New York City
598. Michigan.................... Construct Jackson Road 4.600
project (demonstrating
performance of paper
and plastic reinforced
concrete), Scio
Township...............
599. Alabama..................... Upgrade Opoto-Madrid 1.400
Blvd., Birmingham......
600. Michigan.................... Reconstruct Bagley 0.600
Street and improve
Genschaw Road, Alpena..
601. Texas....................... Reconstruct State 1.294
Highway 87 between
Sabine Pass and Bolivar
Penninsula, McFadden
Beach..................
602. Arkansas.................... Construct Baseline Road 5.000
RR grade separation,
Little Rock............
603. Louisiana................... Construct I-10/Louisiana 8.000
Ave. interchange.......
604. Oregon...................... Construct regional 10.320
multimodal
transportation center
in Albany..............
605. Oregon...................... Repair Coos Bay rail 5.500
bridge, Port of Coos
Bay....................
606. Illinois.................... Upgrade Illinois 336 5.100
between Illinois 61 to
south of Loraine.......
607. Illinois.................... Right-of-way acquisition 4.000
for segment of Alton
Bypass between Illinois
143 to Illinois 140
near Alton.............
608. Oregon...................... Restore the Historic 2.000
Columbia River Highway
including construction
of a pedestrian and
bicycle path under I-84
at Tanner Creek and
restoration of the
Tanner Creek and
Moffett Creek bridges..
609. New Jersey.................. Reconstruct intermodal 4.000
transportation facility
on Bergenline Ave.,
Union City.............
610. Tennessee................... Upgrade US 231 between 5.100
SR 268 and Walter Hill,
Rutherford.............
611. Minnesota................... Extend County State 0.800
Highway 61 extension
into Two Harbors.......
612. Mississippi................. Upgrade roads, 4.410
Washington Co..........
613. Michigan.................... Upgrade M-24 from I-75 0.500
to the northern Oakland
Co. border.............
614. Washington.................. Construct Sequim/ 1.000
Dungeness Valley trail
project................
615. California.................. Construct HOV lane and 16.000
bicycle lane within the
Glendale Blvd. corridor
in Los Angeles.........
616. Michigan.................... Upgrade Groveland Mine 0.500
Road, Dickinson........
617. Pennsylvania................ Upgrade Route 219 5.000
between Meyersdale and
Somerset...............
618. Texas....................... Upgrade IH-30 between 29.000
Dallas and Ft. Worth...
619. Florida..................... Upgrade U.S. 319 between 4.000
I-10 and the Florida/
George State line......
620. Rhode Island................ Construct Rhode Island 7.800
Greenways and Bikeways
projects with of the
amount provided
$5,700,000 for the
Washington Secondary
Bikepath, and
$2,100,000 for the
South County Bikepath
Phase 2................
621. Texas....................... Conduct feasability 0.250
study on upgrading SH
16 in South Texas......
622. Virginia.................... Construct road 0.250
improvement, trailhead
development and related
facilities for Haysi to
Breaks Interstate
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Trail between Haysi and
Garden Hole area of
Breaks Interstate Park.
623. Minnesota................... Upgrade CSAH 16 between 5.400
TH 53 and CSAH 4.......
624. Minnesota................... Construct bicycle and 3.000
pedestrian facility
(Mesabi Trail), St.
Louis County...........
625. Ohio........................ Construct Black River 2.400
Intermodal Center,
Lorain.................
626. Pennsylvania................ Reconstruct structures 3.700
and adjacent roadway,
Etna and Aspenwall
(design and right-of-
way acquisition
phases), Allegheny Co..
627. Florida..................... Construct safety 3.000
improvements and
beautification along
U.S. 92, Daytona Beach.
628. Georgia..................... Undertake major arterial 15.400
enhancements in DeKalb
Co. with the amount
provides as follows:
$7,000,000 for Candler
Rd., $7,500,000 for
Memorial Highway and
$900,000 for Bufford
Highway................
629. Minnesota................... Construct highway 4.000
construction between
Highway 494 and Carver
Co. Rd. 147............
630. California.................. Construct improvements 9.100
to Harry Bridges Blvd.,
Los Angeles............
631. California.................. Extend Route 46 8.000
expressway in San Luis
Obispo Co..............
632. Michigan.................... Upgrade M-84 connector 16.180
between Tittabawasee
Rd. and M-13, Bay and
Saginaw Counties.......
633. California.................. Construct I-380 2.800
connector between
Sneath Lane and San
Bruno Ave., San Bruno..
634. Maryland.................... Reconstruct segment of 9.000
Baltimore Beltway
between U.S. 1 and I-70
635. Ohio........................ Construct interchange at 4.800
SR 11 and King Graves
Rd. in Trumball Co.....
636. Tennessee................... Construct Franklin Road 2.000
interchange and bypass.
637. Arkansas.................... Construct access routes 1.000
between interstate
highway, industrial
park and Slackwater
Harbor, Little Rock....
638. California.................. Upgrade I-880, Alameda.. 10.000
639. Maine....................... Upgrade Route 11........ 4.000
640. Minnesota................... Upgrade 77th St. between 22.800
I-35W and 24th Ave. to
four lanes in Richfield
641. Rhode Island................ Reconstruct Pawtucket 1.500
Ave. and Wilcott St.,
Pawtucket..............
642. Ohio........................ Construct grade 5.000
separations at Fitch
Road in Olmsted Falls..
643. New Jersey.................. Upgrade Market St./Essex 5.000
St. and Rochelle Ave./
Main St. to facilitate
access to Routes 17 and
80, Bergen Co..........
644. Alabama..................... Construct improvements 1.000
to Ensley Avenue
between 20th St. and
Warrior Rd., Birmingham
645. California.................. Seismic retrofit of 2.000
Golden Gate Bridge.....
646. Illinois.................... Extend Rogers Street to 1.900
mitigate congestion,
Waterloo...............
647. Massachusetts............... Construct I-95/I-93 5.000
interchange, Boston....
648. Minnesota................... Upgrade TH 13 between TH 2.000
77 and I-494...........
649. Indiana..................... Upgrade Ridge Road 4.400
between Griffith and
Highland...............
650. California.................. Construct bikeways, 0.512
Santa Maria............
[[Page H1941]]
651. Pennsylvania................ Upgrade PA 61 between PA 8.000
895 and SR 2014,
Schuylkill Co..........
652. Pennsylvania................ Construct road connector 5.000
and bridge over
Allegheny River to link
New Kensington with
Allegheny Valley
Expressway.............
653. Alabama..................... Replace pedestrian 0.100
bridges at Village
Creek and Valley Creek,
Birmingham.............
654. Arkansas.................... Upgrade U.S. 65 in 4.000
Faulkner and Van Buren
Counties...............
655. Illinois.................... Reconstruct U.S. 6, 1.660
Harvey.................
656. Texas....................... Construct improvements 7.680
along US 69 including
frontage roads,
Jefferson Co...........
657. North Carolina.............. Relocate US 1 from north 7.300
of Lakeview to SR 1180,
Moore and Lee Counties.
658. Massachusetts............... Reconstruct Bates Bridge 4.000
over Merrimack River...
659. Oregon...................... Design and engineering 0.500
for Newberg-Dundee
Bypass.................
660. Massachusetts............... Construct Packets 1.000
Landing Enhancement and
Restoration Project,
Town of Yarmouth.......
661. Massachusetts............... Construct roadway 7.717
improvements on Crosby
Drive and Middlesex
Turnpike, Beford,
Burlington and
Billerica..............
662. Tennessee................... Construct SR22 Bypass, 10.000
Obion Co...............
663. Indiana..................... Reconstruct US Rt. 231 4.500
between junction of
State Road 66 to Dubois
Co. line...............
664. Massachusetts............... Upgrade Lowell Street 1.440
between Woburn Street
and Route 38, Town of
Wilmington.............
665. New York.................... Redesign Grand Concourse 13.000
to enhance traffic flow
and related
enhancements between E.
161st St. and Fordham
Rd., New York City.....
666. Massachusetts............... Upgrade Spring St. 2.000
between Bank and Latham
Streets, Williamstown..
667. Massachusetts............... Construct bikeway 8.000
between Blackstone and
Worcester..............
668. Indiana..................... Repair signal wires, 0.700
grade-crossing warning
devices and other
safety protections
along South Shore
Railroad between Gary
and Michigan City......
669. Hawaii...................... Upgrade Puuloa Road 9.000
between Kamehameha
Highway and Salt Lake
Blvd...................
670. California.................. Upgrade call boxes 1.500
throughout Santa
Barbara County.........
671. Missouri.................... Upgrade Route 6 between 5.000
I-29 and Route AC, St.
Joseph.................
672. Tennessee................... Upgrade Briley Parkway 9.000
between McGavock Pike
and I-65...............
673. Wisconsin................... Upgrade Highway 151 8.000
between Platteville and
Dubuque................
674. Michigan.................... Construct Detroit 20.000
Metropolitan/Wayne
County South Access
Road...................
675. Missouri.................... Upgrade Route 36 between 20.000
Hamilton and
Chillicothe............
676. Pennsylvania................ Extend Martin Luther 2.200
King Busway, Alleghany
Co.....................
677. Illinois.................... Study upgrading Illinois 2.100
13/127 between
Murphysboro and
Pinckneyville..........
678. Pennsylvania................ Construct access to site 2.000
of former Philadelphia
Naval Shipyard and
Base, Philadelphia.....
679. California.................. Construct extension of 8.000
State Route 180 between
Rt. 99 and the Hughes/
West Diagonal..........
680. Iowa........................ Construct overpass to 3.475
eliminate railroad
crossing in Burlington.
681. West Virginia............... Construct Riverside 36.000
Expressway, Fairmont...
682. Massachusetts............... Construct South Weymouth 16.300
Naval Air Station
Connectivity
Improvements...........
683. Ohio........................ Construct Eastern US Rt. 5.000
23 bypass of Portsmouth
684. Texas....................... Construct highway-rail- 11.000
marine intermodal
project, Corpus Christi
685. Illinois.................... Construct Central Ave.- 8.700
Narragansett Ave.
connector, Chicago.....
686. Massachusetts............... Preliminary design of 2.000
Route 2 connector to
downtown Fitchburg.....
687. Connecticut................. Implement Trinity 6.810
College Area road
improvements, Hartford.
688. New Jersey.................. Construct Collingswood 8.000
Circle eliminator,
Camen..................
689. Virginia.................... Upgrade Virginia Route 1.000
10, Surrey Co..........
690. Alabama..................... Construct repairs to 0.600
viaducts connecting
downtown and midtown
areas, Birmingham......
691. Connecticut................. Replace Windham Road 2.000
bridge, Windham........
692. Maine....................... Implement rural ITS..... 0.250
693. Tennessee................... Construct SR22 Bypass, 10.000
Obion Co...............
694. Ohio........................ Construct Black River 5.600
intermodal
transportation center..
695. California.................. Construct the South 26.000
Central Los Angeles
Exposition Park
Intermodal Urban Access
Project in Los Angeles.
696. Georgia..................... Upgrade I-75 between the 11.000
Crisp/Dooly Co. line to
the Florida State line.
697. California.................. Construct bicycle paths 0.100
as part of regional
system, Agoura Hills...
698. Massachusetts............... Construct bicycle and 1.440
pedestrian facility
(The Riverwalk),
Peabody................
699. California.................. Construct I-5 rail grade 20.120
crossings between I-605
and State Route 91, Los
Angeles and Orange
Counties...............
700. California.................. Construct tunnel with 8.000
approaches as part of
Devils Slide project in
San Mateo Co...........
701. Texas....................... Construct US Highway 59 3.500
railroad crossing
overpass in Texarkana..
702. South Carolina.............. Construct improvements 9.000
to I-95/SC 38
interchange............
703. Texas....................... Construct Cleveland 13.500
Bypass.................
704. Illinois.................... Rehabilitate WPA Streets 4.700
in Chicago.............
705. California.................. Implement ITS 3.550
technologies in
Employment Center area
of City of El Segundo..
706. California.................. Construct grade- 1.600
separated bicycle path
along Los Angeles River
between Fulton Ave. to
the vicinity of
Sepulveda Blvd. and the
Sepulveda Basin
Recreation Area, Los
Angeles................
707. Michigan.................... Replace Barton Rd./M-14 1.000
interchange, Ann Arbor.
708. Missouri.................... Upgrade Mo. Rt. 150, 3.000
Jackson Co.............
709. Michigan.................... Construct M-24 Corridor 4.000
from I-69 to southern
Lapeer County..........
710. Virginia.................... Upgrade Route 58 from 7.000
Stuart up Lovers' Leap
Mountain towards
Carroll Co.............
711. Massachusetts............... Implement Cape and 0.500
Islands Rural Roads
Initiative, Cape Cod...
712. New York.................... Rehabilitate Broadway 1.470
Bridge, New York City..
713. Massachusetts............... Implement Phase II of 0.391
unified signage system,
Essex Co...............
714. Arizona..................... Design, engineering and 1.000
ROW acquisition for
Area Service Highway,
Yuma...................
715. Alabama..................... Construct Decatur 2.000
Southern Bypass........
716. California.................. Construct new I-95 2.200
interchange with
Highway 99W, Tehama Co.
717. New York.................... Study transportation 0.750
improvements for
segments of Hutchinson
River Parkway and New
England Thruway which
pass through the
Northeast Bronx........
718. California.................. Construct Alameda 2.940
Corridor East, San
Gabriel Valley.........
719. Massachusetts............... Reconstruct Pleasant 1.600
Street-River Terrace,
Holyoke................
720. Mississippi................. Upgrade Alva-Stage Rd., 1.500
Montgomery Co..........
721. New York.................... Upgrade Frederick 14.650
Douglas Circle, New
York City..............
722. West Virginia............... Construct New River 6.000
Parkway................
723. Illinois.................... Upgrade Wood Street 0.990
between Little Calumet
River to 171st St.,
Dixmore, Harvey,
Markham, Hazel Crest...
724. Michigan.................... Improve Hoban Road and 1.120
Grand Avenue, City of
Mackinac Island........
725. Oregon...................... Construct South 13.000
Rivergate rail
overcrossing in
Portland...............
[[Page H1942]]
726. Mississippi................. Upgrade West County Line 11.000
Road, City of Jackson..
727. Massachusetts............... Implement directional 0.600
signage program between
Worcester CBD and
regional airport.......
728. California.................. Upgrade D Street between 1.200
Grand and Second
Streets, Hayward.......
729. Pennsylvania................ Construction of noise 0.800
barriers along State
Route 28, Aspinwall....
730. Michigan.................... Upgrade Tittabawasee 4.000
Road between Mackinaw
Road and Midland Road,
Saginaw Co.............
731. South Carolina.............. Construct North 4.500
Charleston Regional
Intermodal Center......
732. Ohio........................ Upgrade SR 7 (Eastern 2.000
Ave.) to improve
traffic flow into
Gallipolis, Gallia Co..
733. California.................. Modify HOV lanes, Marin 7.000
Co.....................
734. Minnesota................... Construct Highway 210 0.640
trail/underpass,
Brainerd/Baxter........
735. Pennsylvania................ Design, engineer, ROW 2.000
acquisition and
construct the Wilkes-
Barre/Scranton
International Airport
Access Road between
Route 315 and the
airport................
736. Tennessee................... Construct greenway and 3.800
bicycle path corridor,
City of White House....
737. Texas....................... Upgrade Highway 271 2.000
between Paris and
Pattonville............
738. North Carolina.............. Upgrade NC 48 in Halifax 1.500
and Northampton
Counties...............
739. Connecticut................. Revise interchange ramp 3.750
on to Route 72
northbound from I-84
East in Plainville,
Connecticut............
740. California.................. Improve Mission 8.500
Boulevard in San
Bernardino, California.
741. Ohio........................ Widen and reconstruct 8.000
State Route 82 from
Lorain/Cuyahoga County
line to l.R. 77........
742. Tennessee................... Widen US-321 from Kinzel 9.100
Springs to Wean Valley
Road...................
743. New Hampshire............... Construct Orford Bridge. 3.400
744. Oklahoma.................... Reconstruct US-70 in 0.200
Marshall and Bryan
Counties...............
745. Washington.................. Widen SR522 from SR-9 to 4.000
Paradise Lake Road.....
746. New York.................... Improve Cross 1.000
Westchester Expressway.
747. Pennsylvania................ Improve US 22/Canoe 2.000
Creek Blair County.....
748. Missouri.................... Upgrade US-60 in Carter 27.000
County, Missouri.......
749. Ohio........................ Relocate State Route 60 1.500
from Zanesville to
Dresden, Muskingum
County.................
750. Pennsylvania................ Construct PA 16 Truck 1.000
climbing lane in
Franklin County........
751. Indiana..................... Conduct railroad 0.060
relocation study in
Muncie.................
752. Pennsylvania................ Construct highway- 2.000
transit transfer
facility in Lemoyne....
753. Georgia..................... Construct surface 39.000
transportation
facilities along
Atlanta-Griffin-Macon
corridor...............
754. Louisiana................... Improve US-165 from 40.000
Alexandria to Monroe...
755. Ohio........................ Upgrade US-30 from 15.000
Wooster to Riceland....
756. Washington.................. Construct Edmonds 5.000
Crossing Multi-modal
transportation project
in Edmonds, Washington.
757. Indiana..................... Remove and replace 2.140
Walnut Street in Muncie
758. Pennsylvania................ Improve South Central 1.000
Business Park in Fulton
County.................
759. Pennsylvania................ Construct exit ramp on I- 10.500
180 at State Route 2049
in Williamsport........
760. Washington.................. Construct pedestrian 1.000
access and safety on
Deception Pass Bridge,
Deception Pass State
Park, Washington.......
761. Illinois.................... Improve and construct 2.400
grade separation on
Cockrell Lane in
Springfield............
762. Virginia.................... Construct the Kemper 2.000
Street Station
connector road in
Lynchburg..............
763. Oklahoma.................... Reconstruct and widen I- 97.050
40 Crosstown Bridge and
Realignment in downtown
Oklahoma City,
including demolition of
the existing bridge,
vehicle approach roads,
interchanges,
intersections,
signalization and
supporting structures
between I-35 and I-44..
764. New Mexico.................. Improve I-25 at Raton 10.000
Pass...................
765. California.................. Reconstruct La Loma 3.000
Bridge in Pasadena.....
766. New York.................... Conduct traffic calming 0.100
study on National
Scenic Byway Route 5 in
Hamburg................
767. Pennsylvania................ Improve PA-8 between 6.400
Cherry Tree and Rynd
Farm...................
768. Alabama..................... Construct Historic 0.670
Whistler Bike Trail in
Prichard, Alabama......
770. Alaska...................... Construct capital 12.000
improvement to the
Alaska Marine Highway
and related facilities:
$6,000,000 for Seward,
$3,000,000 for
Ketchikan and
$3,000,000 for Hollis..
771. Connecticut................. Rehabilitate Route 202 2.700
bridge in New Milford,
Connecticut............
772. Wisconsin................... Construct U.S. Highway 4.000
10, Freemont to
Appleton...............
773. Texas....................... Conduct major investment 0.500
study for Outer Loop
freeway extension
between I-35 West at
State Highway 170 and
State Highway 199 in
Tarrant County.........
774. Pennsylvania................ Reconfigure US-13/ 2.230
Pennsylvania Turnpike
interchange............
775. Washington.................. Construct Washington 1.200
Pass visitor facilities
on North Cascades
Highway................
776. Washington.................. Improve Huntington 0.750
Avenue South in Castle
Rock...................
777. California.................. Construct Centennial 21.000
Transportation Corridor
778. Kentucky.................... Extend Hurstbourne 8.560
Parkway from Bardstown
Road to Fern Valley
Road...................
779. Pennsylvania................ Eliminate 16 at-grade 8.000
rail crossings through
Erie...................
780. California.................. Construct Cabot-Camino 2.000
Capistrano Bridge
project in Southern
Orange County..........
781. Utah........................ Widen 106th South from I- 5.000
15 to Bangerter Highway
in South Jordan........
782. Ohio........................ Upgrade 11 warning 1.100
devices on the rail
north/south line from
Toledo to Deshler......
783. Washington.................. Construct Port of Kalama 0.900
River Bridge...........
784. California.................. Improve Folsom 4.000
Boulevard--Highway 50
in the city of Folsom..
785. New Hampshire............... Construct the Broad 16.300
Street Parkway in
Nashua.................
786. New York.................... Construct County Road 93 0.515
between NYS 27 and NYS
454....................
787. Washington.................. Improve Clinton Ferry 7.750
Terminal in Clinton....
788. Illinois.................... Construct Riverfront 0.050
pedestrian walkway in
Peoria.................
789. Colorado.................... Construct alternative 5.600
truck route in Montrose
790. New York.................... I-87 Noise Abatement 10.000
Program................
791. New Jersey.................. Construct Toms River 3.000
bridge project
connecting Dover and
South Toms River
Borough................
792. California.................. Install SiliconValley 4.860
Smart Corridor project
along the I-880
corridor...............
793. Illinois.................... Construct Veterans 11.040
Parkway from Eastland
Drive to Commerce
Parkway in Bloomington.
794. Pennsylvania................ Construct Drexel 1.000
University
Infrastructure Research
Facility roadway
improvements...........
795. New Jersey.................. Widen Route 1 from 7.000
Pierson Avenue to Inman
Avenue in Middlesex
County.................
796. Michigan.................... Construct US-131 5.000
Cadillac Bypass project
797. New Hampshire............... Reconstruct US-3 Carroll 2.000
town line 2.1 miles
north..................
798. Texas....................... Upgrade State Highway 35 12.000
Houston District
Brazoria County........
799. Tennessee................... Construct US-27 from 5.500
State Road 61 to Morgan
County line............
800. Pennsylvania................ Install citywide 1.000
signalization (SAMI)
project in Lebanon.....
801. Maryland.................... Upgrade US-113 north of 24.000
US-50 to MD-589 in
Worcester County,
Maryland...............
802. Louisiana................... Construct Florida 0.200
Expressway in St.
Bernard and Orleans
Parishes...............
[[Page H1943]]
803. Colorado.................... Construct I-25 truck 3.000
lane from Lincoln
Avenue to Castle Pines
Parkway in Douglas
County.................
804. Oklahoma.................... Conduct study of Highway 0.300
3 in McCurtain,
Pushmataha and Atoka
Counties...............
805. Texas....................... Reconstruct intermodal 10.000
connectors on Highway
78 and Highway 544 in
Wylie..................
806. Georgia..................... Construct noise barriers 1.000
on the westside of I-
185 between Macon Road
and Airport Thruway and
on I-75 between Mt.
Zion Road and Old Dixie
Highway in the Atlanta
area...................
807. Arkansas.................... Construct the Ashdown 5.000
Bypass/Overpass in
Ashdown................
808. Illinois.................... Constuct Peoria City 4.000
River Center parking
facility in Peoria.....
809. Arkansas.................... Study and construct a 1.000
multi-modal facility
Russellville, Arkansas.
810. Washington.................. Design and implement 1.000
report and
environmental study of
the I-5 corridor in
Everett, Washington....
811. Pennsylvania................ Construct Newton 2.000
Hamilton SR 3021 over
Juniata River in
Mifflin County.........
812. Texas....................... Widen State Highway 6 12.100
from from Senior Road
to FM521...............
813. South Dakota................ Construct Eastern Dakota 15.790
Expressway (Phase I)...
814. Kentucky.................... Construct necessary 9.500
connections for the
Taylor Southgate Bridge
in Newport and the Clay
Wade Bailey Bridge in
Covington..............
815. Washington.................. Construct traffic 0.257
signals on US-2 at Olds
Owens Road and 5th
Street in Sultan,
Washington.............
816. Minnesota................... Widen Trunk Highway 14/ 13.000
52 from 75th Street, NW
to Trunk Highway 63 in
Rochester..............
817. New Jersey.................. Improve Old York Road/ 6.640
Rising Run Road
intersection in
Burlington.............
818. Pennsylvania................ Construct I-81 noise 0.640
abatement program in
Dauphin County.........
819. Alabama..................... Construct Crepe Myrtle 1.600
Trail near Mobile,
Alabama................
820. California.................. Construct SR-78/Rancho 5.000
Del Oro interchange in
Oceanside..............
821. New Jersey.................. Improve grade 14.000
separations on the
Garden State Parkway in
Cape May County, New
Jersey.................
822. Pennsylvania................ Construct Western 3.600
Innerloop from PA-26 to
State Route 3014.......
823. Kansas...................... Widen US-169 in Miami 13.500
County.................
824. New Hampshire............... Construct Hindsale 3.000
Bridge.................
825. Washington.................. Construct I-5 6.650
interchanges in Lewis
County.................
826. Georgia..................... Widen Georgia Route 6/US- 10.888
278 in Polk County.....
827. Pennsylvania................ Improve access and 5.000
interchange from I-95
to the international
terminal at
Philadelphia
International Airport..
828. Pennsylvania................ Construct rail 12.800
mitigation and
improvement projects
from Philadelphia to
New Jersey Line........
829. Nevada...................... Extend I-580 in Washie 5.000
and Douglas Counties...
830. Georgia..................... Resurface Davis Drive, 0.400
Green Street, and North
Houston Road in Warner
Robins.................
831. Oregon...................... Repair Port of Hood 23.500
River Bridge Lift Span
project................
832. New York.................... Improve access to I-84/ 3.000
Dutchess intermodal
facility in Dutchess
County.................
833. Georgia..................... Conduct a study of an 5.000
interstate multimodal
transportation corridor
from Atlanta to
Chattanooga............
834. Nebraska.................... Corridor study for 0.100
Louisville South bypass
from State Highway 66
to State Highway 50....
835. Michigan.................... Conduct feasibility 0.250
study on widening US-12
to three lanes between
US-127 and Michigan
Highway 50.............
836. Kentucky.................... Correct rock hazard on 0.035
US-127 in Russell
County.................
837. New York.................... Construct new exit 46A 10.000
on I-90 at Route 170 in
North Chili............
838. California.................. Construct parking lot, 3.800
pedestrian bridge and
related improvements to
improve intermodal
transportation in Yorba
Linda..................
839. Missouri.................... Construct US-412 8.000
corridor from Kennett
to Hayti, Missouri.....
840. Florida..................... ITS improvements on US- 2.000
19 in Pasco County.....
841. Florida..................... Construct I-4 reversible 14.000
safety lane in Orlando.
842. Connecticut................. Improve and realign 2.020
Route 8 in Winchester..
843. Louisiana................... Construct State Highway 10.000
3241/State Highway 1088/
I-12 interchange in St.
Tammany Parish,
Louisiana..............
844. Nebraska.................... Corridor study for 0.350
Plattsmouth Bridge area
to US-75 and Horning
Road...................
845. Michigan.................... Construct US-131 2.000
Business route/
industrial connector in
Kalamazoo..............
846. Michigan.................... Reconstruct I-94 between 14.750
Michigan Route 14 and
US-23..................
847. California.................. Ontario International 10.500
Airport ground access
program................
848. Texas....................... Construct the George 10.000
H.W. Bush Presidential
Corridor from Bryan to
east to I-45...........
849. Virginia.................... Construct I-73 from 8.500
Roanoke to the North
Carolina border........
850. Louisiana................... Kerner's Ferry Bridge 1.000
Replacement project....
851. Washington.................. Widen SR-522 in 5.200
Snohomish County:
$3,650,000 for phase 1
from SR-9 to Lake Road;
$1,500,000 to construct
segment from Paradise
Lake Road to Snohomish
River Bridge...........
852. California.................. Plan and design 4.000
interchange between I-
15 and Sante Fe Road in
Barstow, California....
853. California.................. Upgrade Ft. Irwin Road 1.500
from I-15 to Fort Irwin
854. Nebraska.................... Construct bridge in 4.000
Newcastle..............
855. Indiana..................... Conduct rail-highway 0.100
feasibility project
study in Muncie........
856. New Jersey.................. Replace the Ocean City- 26.000
Longport bridge in Cape
May County, New Jersey.
857. Kentucky.................... Construct a segment of 10.000
the I-66 corridor from
Somerset to I-75.......
858. Ohio........................ Improve and widen SR-45 7.920
from North of the I-90
interchange to North
Bend Road in Ashtabula
County, Ohio...........
859. Illinois.................... Construct I-88 4.300
interchange at Peace
Road in Dekalb.........
860. Virginia.................... Widen Route 123 from 10.000
Prince William County
line to State Route 645
in Fairfax County,
Virginia...............
861. Pennsylvania................ Widen and improve Route 1.000
449 in Potter County...
862. Ohio........................ Conduct feasibility 0.100
study for inclusion of
US-22 as part of the
Interstate System......
863. New Hampshire............... Improve the Bridge 1.000
Street bridge in
Plymouth...............
864. Louisiana................... Conduct a feasibility 2.000
and design study of
Louisiana Highway 30
between Louisiana
Highway 44 and I-10....
865. Louisiana................... Construct I-610 noise 1.000
and safety barrier in
the Lake View section
of New Orleans,
Louisiana..............
866. New York.................... Conduct North Road 1.500
Corridor study in
Oswego County..........
867. Kansas...................... Construct Diamond 8.400
interchange at Antioch
and I-435..............
868. Iowa........................ Reconstruct I-235 in 6.900
Polk County............
869. Florida..................... Construct Port of Palm 21.000
Beach road access
improvements, Palm
Beach County, Florida..
[[Page H1944]]
870. Tennessee................... Improve the Elizabethon 8.450
Connector from US-312
to US-19 East..........
871. California.................. Stabilize US-101 at 1.000
Wilson Creek...........
872. Michigan.................... Improve the I-73 5.000
corridor in Jackson and
Lenawee Counties.......
873. Arkansas.................... Improve Arkansas State 2.500
Highway 59 from Rena
Road to Old Uniontown
Road in Van Buren......
874. Illinois.................... Construct Richton Road, 2.000
Crete..................
875. Ohio........................ Widen Licking-SR-79- 9.400
06.65 (PID 8314) in
Licking County.........
876. New York.................... Improve and reconstruct 0.280
Commerce Street in York
Town...................
877. Arkansas.................... Construct Highway 371 3.000
from Magnolia to
Prescott...............
878. Arkansas.................... Construct Highway 82 7.000
from Hamburg to
Montrose...............
879. California.................. Improve SR-91/Green 6.500
River Road interchange.
880. California.................. Widen and improve I-5/ 13.900
State Route 126
interchange in Valencia
881. Pennsylvania................ Construct US-30 Bypass 4.400
from Exton Bypass to PA-
10.....................
882. Illinois.................... Replace State Route 47 19.000
Bridge in Morris.......
883. New York.................... Construct County Road 67 0.700
at Long Island
Expressway Exit 57
between County Road 17
and....................
884. California.................. Construct I-15/Barton 5.000
Road West/Anderson
Street connection......
885. New York.................... Reconstruct Route 9 in 3.354
Plattsburgh............
886. Illinois.................... Engineering for Peoria 5.000
to Chicago expressway..
887. Louisiana................... Construct Hourma- 3.100
Thibodaux to I-10
connector from Gramercy
to Hourma..............
888. Washington.................. Construct Peace Arch 4.900
Crossing of Entry
(PACE) lane in Blaine..
889. Florida..................... Purchase and install I- 1.000
275 traffic management
system in Pinellas
County, Florida........
890. Mississippi................. Construct I-55 3.000
connectors to US-51 in
Madison, Mississippi...
891. Alabama..................... Construct Anniston 44.600
Eastern Bypass from I-
20 to Fort McClellan in
Calhoun County.........
892. Connecticut................. Realign and extend Hart 4.000
Street in New Britain..
893. Texas....................... Construct Spur 10 from 4.000
SH-36 to US-59.........
894. Wisconsin................... Construct U.S. Highway 30.000
151 Fond du Lac Bypass.
895. Ohio........................ Grade separation project 3.000
at Snow Road Brook Park
896. Nebraska.................... Conduct corridor study 0.550
from Wayne to
Vermillion-Newcastle
bridge.................
897. Pennsylvania................ Construct Erie Eastside 21.600
Connector..............
898. New York.................... Reconstruct County Route 2.473
24 in Franklin County..
899. Pennsylvania................ Construct SR-3019 over 0.500
Great Trough Creek in
Huntingdon County......
900. California.................. Construct Tulare County 9.000
roads in Tulare County.
901. Pennsylvania................ Widen PA-228 from 1.200
Criders Corners to
State Route 3015.......
902. South Carolina.............. Three River Greenway 5.000
Project to and from
Gervals Street in
Columbia...............
903. Washington.................. Construct State Route 3.500
305 corridor
improvements in
Poulsbo, Washington....
904. Pennsylvania................ Improve Lewistown 1.000
Narrows US-322 in
Mifflin and Juniata
County.................
905. Nevada...................... Construct the US-395 5.000
Carson City Bypass.....
906. Illinois.................... Reconstruct I-74 through 12.865
Peoria.................
907. Florida..................... Widen Gunn Highway 2.000
between Erlich Road and
South Mobley Road in
Hillsborough County....
908. New York.................... Construct intermodal 2.500
transportation hub in
Patchogue..............
909. New York.................... Upgrade and relocate 20.000
Utica-Rome Expressway
in Oneida, County New
York...................
910. Georgia..................... Conduct a study of a 2.400
multimodal
transportation corridor
from Lawrenceville to
Marietta...............
911. Georgia..................... I-75 advanced 1.700
transportation
management system in
Cobb County............
912. New Hampshire............... Berlin Heritage Project 0.050
from the Everett
turnpike to Hudson in
Berlin County..........
913. Alabama..................... Engineering, right-of- 20.000
way acquisition and
construction of the
Birmingham Northern
Beltline in Jefferson
County.................
914. Florida..................... Replace St. Johns River 14.000
Bridge in Volusia and
Seminole Counties......
915. Maryland.................... Improve Halfway 4.000
Boulevard east and west
of Exit 5, I-81 in
Washington County......
916. Georgia..................... Construct Harry S. 3.550
Truman Parkway.........
917. Pennsylvania................ Reconstruct the I-81 8.000
Davis Street
interchange in
Lackawanna.............
918. Illinois.................... Widen 143rd Street in 8.000
Orland Park............
919. Pennsylvania................ Conduct study of Ft. 0.500
Washington
transportation
improvements, Upper
Dublin, PA.............
920. Kansas...................... Construct grade 4.200
separations on US-36
and US-77 in
Marysville, Kansas.....
921. Ohio........................ Relocate Harrison/ 6.000
Belmont US-250.........
922. Arkansas.................... Widen 28th Street and 1.000
related improvements in
Van Buren, Arkansas....
923. Tennessee................... Improve County Road 374 5.000
in Montgomery County...
924. Virginia.................... Conduct feasibility 0.500
study for the
construction I-66 from
Lynchburg to the West
Virginia border........
925. Florida..................... Expand Palm Valley 3.100
Bridge in St. Johns
County.................
926. Michigan.................... Construct M-6 Grand 28.720
Rapids South Beltline
in Grand Rapids,
Michigan...............
927. Pennsylvania................ Reconstruct PA-309 in 17.400
Eastern Montgomery with
$4,000,000 for noise
abatement..............
928. Colorado.................... Reconstruct I-225/Iliff 5.500
Avenue interchange in
Aurora.................
929. California.................. Widen US-101 from 1.600
Windsor to Arata
Interchange............
930. New Jersey.................. Design and construction 4.600
Belford Ferry Terminal
in Belford, New Jersey.
931. Louisiana................... Construct East-West 1.000
Corridor project in
Southwest Louisiana....
932. Kentucky.................... Construct US-127 5.800
Jamestown Bypass.......
933. Kentucky.................... Conduct feasibility 0.500
study for Northern
Kentucky High Priority
Corridor (I-74)........
934. Utah........................ Improve 5600 West 5.000
Highway from 2100 South
to 4100 South in West
Valley City............
935. Arkansas.................... Construct US-270 East- 9.000
West Arterial in Hot
Springs................
936. New York.................... Improve Route 31 from 11.750
Baldwinsville to County
Route 57...............
937. Arkansas.................... Widen West Phoenix 8.000
Avenue and related
improvements in Fort
Smith, Arkansas........
938. Arkansas.................... Improve Arkansas State 0.500
Highway 12 from US-71
at Rainbow Curve to
Northwest Arkansas
Regional Airport.......
939. Texas....................... Widen State Highway 35 6.900
from SH288 in Angleton
to FM521...............
940. Louisiana................... Congestion mitigation 3.000
and safety improvements
to the Central thruway
in Baton Rouge.........
941. North Carolina.............. Widen North Carolina 4.000
Route 24 from Swansboro
to US-70 in Onslow and
Carteret Counties......
942. North Carolina.............. Construct US-13 from the 4.500
Wilson the US-264
Bypass to Goldsboro in
Wayne and Wilson
Counties...............
943. Michigan.................... Construct Bridge Street 4.200
bridge project in
Southfield.............
944. Connecticut................. Improve Route 7 utility 7.200
and landscaping in New
Milford................
945. Pennsylvania................ Construct access 1.700
improvements between
exits 56 and 57 off I-
81 in Lackawanna.......
[[Page H1945]]
946. New Jersey.................. Construct grade 5.000
separation of Route 35
and Tinton falls and
extend Shrewsbury
Avenue in Monmouth.....
947. Washington.................. Improve I-5/196th 4.500
Street, Southwest
Freeway interchange in
Lynnwood, Washington...
948. Tennessee................... Extend Pellissippi 11.800
Parkway from State
Route 33 to State Route
321 in Blount County...
949. New York.................... Improve Route 281 in 9.000
Cortland...............
950. California.................. Construct I-15 Galinas 8.500
interchange in
Riverside County.......
951. New Hampshire............... Construct the Keene 6.150
bypass.................
952. Illinois.................... Design and construct US- 10.000
67 corridor from
Jacksonville to
Beardstown.............
953. Virginia.................... Conduct Williamsburg 0.325
2007 transportation
study..................
954. Mississippi................. Widen US-84 from I-55 at 1.250
Brookhaven to US-49 at
Collins................
955. New York.................... Reconstruct Jackson 2.624
Avenue in New Windsor,
Orange County..........
956. Texas....................... Widen State Highway 6 12.200
from FM521 to Brazoria
County line and
construct railroad
overpass...............
957. Tennessee................... Reconstruct road and 15.000
causeway in Shiloh
Military Park in Hardin
County.................
958. Florida..................... Pedestrian safety 6.800
initiative on US-19 in
Pinellas County........
959. Washington.................. Improve primary truck 4.900
access route on East
Marine View Drive, FAST
corridor in Washington.
960. Florida..................... Construct Wonderwood 38.000
Connector from Mayport
to Arlington, Duval
County, Florida........
961. California.................. Improve the Avenue H 6.100
overpass in Lancaster
County.................
962. Pennsylvania................ Improve safety on PA-41 6.000
from US-30 to PA-926...
963. New Jersey.................. Consrtuct Route 29/129 5.500
bicycle, pedestrian and
landscape improvement
plan...................
964. Idaho....................... Construct critical 10.000
interchanges and grade-
crossings on US-20
between Idaho Falls and
Chester................
965. Louisiana................... Expand Perkins Road in 10.000
Baton Rouge............
966. Pennsylvania................ Widen US 30 from Walker 2.000
Rd to Fayetteville in
Franklin County........
967. Wyoming..................... Construct Jackson-Teton 1.830
Pathway in Teton County
968. Utah........................ Widen 7200 South in 1.100
Midvale................
969. Washington.................. Conduct feasibility 1.000
study of State Route 35
Hood River bridge in
White Salmon...........
970. Arkansas.................... Upgrade US Route 412, 3.550
Harrison to Mountain
Home, Arkansas.........
971. Nevada...................... Canamex Corridor 12.000
Innovative Urban
Renovation project in
Henderson..............
972. Georgia..................... Construct Athens to 8.000
Atlanta Transportation
Corridor...............
973. California.................. Widen State Route 29 0.500
between Route 281 and
Route 175..............
974. California.................. Upgrade US-101 from 1.000
Eureka to Arcata.......
975. Louisiana................... Expand Harding Road from 3.600
Scenic Highway to the
Mississippi River and
construct an
information center.....
976. Indiana..................... Improve Southwest 30.000
Highway from
Bloomington to
Evansville.............
977. Pennsylvania................ Construct Route 72 8.810
overpass at Conrail in
Lebanon................
978. Indiana..................... Construct Hazel Dell 5.500
Parkway from 96th
Street to 146th Street
in Carmel..............
979. New Jersey.................. Replace Calhoun Street 1.300
Bridge in Trenton......
980. Utah........................ Reconstruct US-89 and 7.000
interchange at 200
North in Kaysville.....
981. California.................. Construct Nogales Street 4.500
at Railroad Street
grade separation in Los
Angeles County,
California.............
982. Pennsylvania................ Improve Bedford County 2.000
Business Park Rd in
Bedford County.........
983. Utah........................ Extend Main Street from 11.500
5600 South to Vine
Street in Murray.......
984. Pennsylvania................ Construct US-30 at PA- 6.000
772 and PA-41..........
985. Illinois.................... Improve Sugar Grove US30 2.500
986. California.................. Improve Route 99/Route 8.000
120 interchange in
Manteca County.........
987. Pennsylvania................ Widen US-11/15 between 5.000
Mt. Patrick and McKees
Half Falls in Perry
County.................
988. Ohio........................ Add lanes and improve 2.000
intersections on Route
20 in Lake County, Ohio
989. Pennsylvania................ Construct PA-283 North 2.450
Union Street ramps in
Dauphin County.........
990. California.................. Improve and construct I- 7.400
80 reliever route
project; Walters Road
and Walters Road
Extension Segments.....
991. Alabama..................... Expand US-278 in Cullman 6.000
County.................
992. Ohio........................ Construct Chagrin River/ 1.545
Gulley Brook corridor
scenic greenway along I-
90 in Lake County......
993. Oregon...................... Construct phase I: 1.500
highway 99 to Biddle
Road of the highway 62
corridor solutions
project................
994. New York.................... Renovate State Route 9 3.840
in Phillipstown........
995. Arkansas.................... Enhance area in the 1.500
vicinity of Dickson
Street in Fayetteville.
996. Missouri.................... Construction US-67/Route 8.000
60 interchange in
Poplar Bluff, Missouri.
997. Kansas...................... Widen US-81 from 27.800
Minneapolis, Kansas to
Nebraska...............
998. California.................. Widen US-101 from 33.000
Petaluma Bridge to
Novato.................
999. Alabama..................... Construct new I-10 14.375
bridge over the Mobile
River in Mobile,
Alabama................
1000. Mississippi................ Upgrade and widen US-49 1.250
in Rankin, Simpson, and
Covington Counties.....
1001. California................. Realign and improve 6.000
California Route 79 in
Riverside County.......
1002. New Jersey................. Construct East Windsor 0.360
Bear Brook pathway
system.................
1003. New York................... Construct Hutton Bridge 3.000
Project................
1004. Ohio....................... Improve State Route 800 0.500
in Monroe County.......
1005. Pennsylvania............... Improve PA-41 between 7.600
Delaware State line and
PA-926.................
1006. New York................... Improve Hiawatha 2.250
Boulevard and Harrison
Street corridors in
Syracuse...............
1007. Pennsylvania............... Replace Dellville Bridge 1.000
in Wheatfield..........
1008. Florida.................... Construct I-4/John Young 13.659
Parkway interchange
project in Orlando.....
1009. Connecticut................ Reconstruct Broad Street 3.200
in New Britain.........
1010. Washington................. Widen US-395 in the 10.000
vicinity of mile post
170 north of Spokane...
1011. New York................... Construct NYS Route 27 4.700
at intersection of
North Monroe Avenue....
1012. New York................... Reconstruct Route 23/ 0.850
Route 205 intersection
in Oneonta.............
1013. Alaska..................... Construct Pt. Mackenzie 9.000
Intermodal Facility....
1014. Maryland................... Construct phase 1A of 15.000
the I-70/I-270/US-340
interchange in
Frederick County.......
1015. Illinois................... Widen and improve US-34 8.000
intechange in Aurora...
1016. Florida.................... A-1-A Beautification 4.400
project in Daytona,
Florida................
1017. Louisiana.................. Construct I-49 5.600
interchange at Caddo
Port Road in Shreveport
1018. Tennessee.................. Construct Kingsport 2.000
Highway in Washington
County.................
1019. New Hampshire.............. Improve 3 Pisquataqua 2.200
River Bridges on the
New Hampshire--Maine
border.................
1020. Nebraska................... Construct the Antelope 7.500
Valley Overpass in
Lincoln................
[[Page H1946]]
1021. Pennsylvania............... Install traffic signal 0.500
upgrade in Clearfield
Borough in Clearfield
County.................
1022. North Carolina............. Construct US-311(I-74) 30.500
from NC-68 to US-29A-
70A....................
1023. California................. Design and initiation of 0.500
long term improvements
along Highway 199 in
Del Norte County,
California.............
1024. Virginia................... Improve Lee Highway 1.800
Corridor in Fairfax,
Virginia...............
1025. Illinois................... Improve roads in the 0.810
Peoria Park District...
1026. California................. Construct Overland Drive 5.000
overcrossing in
Temecula...............
1027. Iowa....................... Construct the Julien 28.000
Dubuque Bridge over the
Mississippi River at
Dubuque................
1028. Kentucky................... Construct highway-rail 1.100
grade separations along
the City Lead in
Paducah................
1029. Indiana.................... Safety improvements to 9.100
McKinley and Riverside
Avenues in Muncie......
1030. Pennsylvania............... Gettysburg comprehensive 4.000
road improvement study.
1031. Indiana.................... Reconstruct Wheeling 1.600
Avenue in Muncie.......
1032. Indiana.................... Construct Hoosier 25.000
Heartland from
Lafayette to Ft. Wayne.
1033. Louisiana.................. Upgrade and widen I-10 12.000
between Williams
Boulevard and Tulane
Avenue in Jefferson and
Orleans Parishes.......
1034. Louisiana.................. Construct Metairie Rail 7.000
Improvements and
Relocation project in
Jefferson and Orleans
Parishes, Louisiana....
1035. Wisconsin.................. Construct STH-26/US-41 3.000
Interchange in Oshkosh.
1036. Pennsylvania............... Improve Sidling Hill 0.500
Curve and Truck Escape
in Fulton County.......
1037. New York................... Construct Wellwood 1.200
Avenue from Freemont
Street to Montauk
Highway in Lindenhurst.
1038. New York................... Improve ferry 1.000
infrastructure in
Greenport..............
1039. Alaska..................... Construct Spruce Creek 0.350
Bridge in Soldotna.....
1040. Alabama.................... Construct East Foley 7.000
corridor project from
Baldwin County Highway
20 to State Highway 59
in Alabama.............
1041. Louisiana.................. Construct North/South 7.000
Road/I-10-US-61
connection in the
Kenner, Louisiana......
1042. Texas...................... Construct FM2234(McHard 6.400
Road) from SH-35 to
Beltway 8 at Monroe
Boulevard..............
1043. Michigan................... Construct M-5 Haggerty 3.200
Connector..............
1044. Kentucky................... Ohio River Major 40.100
Investment Study
Project, Kentucky and
Indiana................
1045. Ohio....................... Construct Muskingum-SR- 8.000
16.....................
1046. Ohio....................... Relocate SR-30 for final 1.000
design of south
alternative in Carroll
County, Ohio...........
1047. Missouri................... Upgrade US-63 in Howell 8.000
County, Missouri.......
1048. California................. Widen SR-23 between 14.000
Moorpark and Thousand
Oaks...................
1049. Connecticut................ Reconstruct Post Office 1.500
Town Farm Road in
Enfield, Connecticut...
1050. Washington................. Improve I-90/Sunset Way 19.800
interchange in
Issaquah, WA...........
1051. New York................... Construct Elmira 3.000
Arterial from Miller to
Cedar..................
1052. California................. Construct Imperial 14.500
Highway grade
separation and sound
walls at Esperanza Road/
Orangethorpe Avenue in
Yorba Linda,
California.............
1053. Wyoming.................... Widen and improve Cody-- 10.170
Yellowstone Highway
from the entrance to
Yellowstone National
Park to Cody...........
1054. Florida.................... West Palm Beach Traffic 15.000
Calming Project on US-1
and Flagur Drive.......
1055. Missouri................... Construction and upgrade 33.303
of US-71/I-49 in Newton
and McDonald County,
Missouri...............
1056. Virginia................... Commuter and freight 10.000
rail congestion and
mitigation project over
Quantico Creek.........
1057. California................. Complete Citraeado 3.000
Parkway project in San
Diego County...........
1058. Tennessee.................. Improve State Route 92 4.550
from I-40 to South of
Jefferson City.........
1059. Washington................. Redevelop Port of 0.077
Anacortes waterfront...
1060. Mississippi................ Widen US-98 from Pike 1.250
County to Foxworth.....
1061. New York................... Construct US-219 from 20.000
Route 39 to Route 17...
1062. Michigan................... Construct US-27 between 8.500
St. Johns and Ithaca...
1063. California................. Construct highway-rail 4.215
grade separation for
Fairway Drive and Union
Pacific track..........
1064. Tennessee.................. Reconstruct Old Walland 1.680
Highway bridge over
Little River in
Townsend...............
1065. California................. Construct I-10 2.000
Tippecanoe/Anderson
interchange project in
Loma Linda and San
Bernardino County,
California.............
1066. California................. Construct State Route 76 10.000
in Northern San Diego..
1067. Nebraska................... Construct NE-35 4.500
alternative and
modified route
expressway in Norfolk
and Wayne..............
1068. Arkansas................... Construct Highway 425 7.000
from Pine Bluff to the
Louisiana State line...
1069. Tennessee.................. Construct bridge and 13.200
approaches on State
Route 33 over the
Tennessee River (Henley
Street Bridge).........
1070. Mississippi................ Construct Jackson 10.000
International Airport
Parkway and connectors
from High Street to the
Jackson International
Airport in Jackson,
Mississippi............
1071. Wisconsin.................. Reconstruct U.S. Highway 12.000
10, Waupaca County.....
1072. Ohio....................... Construct highway-rail 8.205
grade separations on
Heisley Road between
Hendricks Road and
Jackson Street in
Mentor.................
1073. Virginia................... Widen I-64 Bland 30.675
Boulevard interchange..
1074. Illinois................... Improve IL-159 in 4.275
Edwardsville...........
1075. Iowa....................... Extend NW 86th Street 7.000
from NW 70th Street to
Beaver Drive in Polk
County.................
1076. New York................... Construct County Route 7.577
21, Peeksill Hollow
Road renovation project
1077. Iowa....................... IA-192 relation and 6.000
Avenue G viaduct in
Council Bluffs.........
1078. Ohio....................... Upgrade and widen US-24 23.000
from I-469 to I-475....
1079. Illinois................... Construct crossings over 10.200
Fox River in Kane
County.................
1080. Florida.................... Construct North East 1.600
Dade Bike Path in North
Miami Beach, Florida...
1081. Pennsylvania............... Improve Oxford Valley 4.000
Road/US-1 interchange
in Bucks County........
1082. California................. Improve highway access 0.500
to Humboldt Bay and
Harbor Port............
1083. North Carolina............. Construct I-85 29.500
Greensboro Bypass in
Greensboro, North
Carolina...............
1084. Pennsylvania............... Reconfigure I-81 Exit 2 0.700
Ramp in Franklin County
1085. Indiana.................... Feasibility study of 0.600
State Road 37
improvements in
Noblesville, Elwood and
Marion.................
1086. New Jersey................. Revitalize Route 130 4.000
from Cinnaminson to
Willingboro............
1087. Ohio....................... Upgrade I-77/US-250/SR- 1.000
39 interchange in
Tuscarawas County......
1088. Virginia................... Enhance Maple Avenue 2.700
streetscape in Vienna,
Virginia...............
1089. Arkansas................... Widen Highway 65/82 from 7.000
Pine Bluff to the
Mississippi State line.
1090. New Jersey................. Construct Route 31 15.400
Fleming Bypass in
Hunterdon County, New
Jersey.................
1091. New York................... Conduct safety study and 0.400
improve I-90 in
Downtown Buffalo.......
1092. Utah....................... Widen SR-36 from I-80 to 3.000
Mills Junction.........
1093. Alabama.................... Construct the Montgomery 17.650
Outer Loop from US-80
to I-85 via I-65.......
1094. Tennessee.................. Construct Foothills 11.500
Parkway from Walland to
Weans Valley...........
[[Page H1947]]
1095. California................. Upgrade and synchronize 23.000
traffic lights in the
Alameda Corridor East
in Los Angeles County..
1096. New York................... Conduct feasibility 0.500
study of new
International bridges
on the NY/Canada border
1097. Colorado................... Construct C-470/I-70 6.250
ramps in Jefferson Co..
1098. Virginia................... Improve Route 123 from 15.000
Route 1 to Fairfax
County line in Prince
William County,
Virginia...............
1099. Washington................. Construct Interstate 405/ 23.500
NE 8th Street
interchange project in
Bellevue, WA...........
1100. New Hampshire.............. Widen I-93 from Salem 12.100
north..................
1101. South Dakota............... Replace Meridan Bridge.. 3.250
1102. Washington................. Extend Mill Plain 4.000
Boulevard in Vancouver.
1103. Colorado................... Improve SH-74/JC-73 6.250
interchange in
Evergreen County.......
1104. Tennessee.................. Improve US-64 in 5.000
Hardeman and McNairy
Counties...............
1105. Illinois................... Design and construct I- 5.500
72/MacArthur Boulevard
interchange in
Springfield............
1106. Pennsylvania............... Replace bridge over 1.000
Shermans Creek in
Carroll................
1107. Illinois................... Improve IL-113 in 7.700
Kankakee...............
1108. Pennsylvania............... Realign PA29 in the 0.550
Borough of
Collegeville,
Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania...........
1109. Louisiana.................. Construct Causeway 5.000
Boulevard/Earhart
Expressway interchange
in Jefferson, Parish,
Louisiana..............
1110. Pennsylvania............... Improve PA 26 in 1.000
Huntingdon County......
1111. New York................... Construct Furrows Road 1.500
from Patchogue/Holbrook
Road to Waverly Avenue
in Islip...............
1112. Tennessee.................. Reconstruction of US-414 5.000
In Henderson County....
1113. Indiana.................... Widen 116th Street in 1.500
Carmel.................
1114. Louisiana.................. Reconstruct Jefferson 1.000
Lakefront bikepath in
Jefferson Parish,
Louisiana..............
1115. Utah....................... Construct 7800 South 6.500
from 1300 West to
Bangerter Highway in
West Jordan............
1116. Mississippi................ Construct segment 2 and 1.250
3 of the Bryam-Clinton
Corridor in Hinds
County.................
1117. Kentucky................... Construct Route 259-101 1.000
from Brownsville to I-
65.....................
1118. New Jersey................. Replace Kinnaman Avenue 1.600
bridge over Pohatcong
Creek in Warren County.
1119. Louisiana.................. Widen Lapalco Boulevard 5.000
from Barataria
Boulevard to Destrehan
Avenue in Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana......
1120. Florida.................... Restore and rehabilitate 1.800
Miami Beach Bridge and
waterfront in Miami
Beach, Florida.........
1121. Texas...................... Widen Highway 287 from 13.500
Creek Bend Drive to
Waxahacie bypass.......
1122. Utah....................... Widen and improve 123rd/ 5.000
126th South from Jordan
River to Bangerter
Highway in Riverton....
1123. Ohio....................... Construct a new 7.100
interchange at County
Road 80 and I-77 in
Dover with $100,000 to
preserve or reconstruct
the Tourism Information
Center.................
1124. Pennsylvania............... Realign Route 501 in 1.600
Lebanon County.........
1125. Pennsylvania............... Construct Williamsport- 7.000
Lycoming County Airport
Access road from I-80
to the airport.........
1126. New York................... Construct the Mineola 14.000
intermodal facility and
Hicksville intermodal
facility in Nassau
County.................
1127. Arkansas................... Construct Highway 15 1.000
from Connector Road to
Railroad Overpass in
Pine Bluff.............
1128. Kentucky................... Redevelop and improve 2.840
ground access to
Louisville Waterfront
District in Louisville,
Kentucky...............
1129. Ohio....................... Improve and widen SR-91 5.000
from SR-43 south to
county line/city line
in Solon...............
1130. Louisiana.................. Extend I-49 from I-220 4.400
to Arkansas State line.
1131. Pennsylvania............... West Philadelphia 0.410
congestion mitigation
initiative.............
1132. New York................... Judd Road Connector in 37.300
New Hartford and
Whitestown, New York...
1133. South Dakota............... Construct Eastern Dakota 31.438
Expressway (Phase II)..
1134. Virginia................... Conduct historic 0.500
restoration of Roanoke
Passange Station in
Roanoke................
1135. Louisiana.................. Construct Port of St. 2.100
Bernard Intermodal
facility...............
1136. Mississippi................ Construct segment 2 of 1.250
the Jackson University
Parkway in Jackson.....
1137. Indiana.................... Extend East 56th Street 6.500
in Lawrence............
1138. Ohio....................... Improve and construct SR- 4.000
44/Jackson Street
Interchange in
Painesville............
1139. Pennsylvania............... Widen US-30 from US-222 12.000
to PA-340 and from PA-
283 to PA-741..........
1140. Ohio....................... Construct State Route 2.200
209 from Cambridge and
Byesville to the
Guernsey County
Industrial Park........
1141. California................. Construct I-5/Avenida 3.000
Vista Hermosa
interchange in San
Clemente...............
1142. Pennsylvania............... Improve PA 17 from PA 1.000
274 to PA 850 in Perry
County.................
1143. Georgia.................... Improve GA-316 in 40.900
Gwinnett County........
1144. New York................... Construct congestion 5.000
mitigation project for
Brookhaven.............
1145. New Hampshire.............. Construct Chestersfield 3.000
Bridge.................
1146. California................. Improve the interchange 6.000
at Cabo and Nason
Street in Moreno Valley
1147. Missouri................... Widen US-63 in Randolph 45.360
and Boone Counties,
Missouri...............
1148. New Jersey................. Upgrade Garden State 30.000
Parkway Exit 142.......
1149. New York................... Improve Bedford- 2.880
Banksville Road from
Millbrook to
Connecticut State line.
1150. New York................... Upgrade and improve 14.000
Albany to Saratoga to
Adirondack intermodal
transportation corridor
1151. Oklahoma................... Reconstruct US-99/SH377 9.000
from Prague to Stroud
in Lincoln County......
1152. Washington................. Safety improvements to 4.200
State Route 14 in
Columbia River Gorge
National Scenic Area...
1153. Nevada..................... Widen I-50 between 4.000
Fallon and Fernley.....
1154. South Carolina............. Widen and relocate SC-6 8.000
in Lexington County....
1155. Kansas..................... Widen US-54 from 8.000
Liberal, Kansas
southwest to Oklahoma..
1156. Virginia................... Improve East Eldon 0.500
Street in Herndon......
1157. Michigan................... Improve US-31 from 5.000
Holland to Grand Haven.
1158. Arkansas................... Construct turning lanes 0.250
at US-71/AR-8
intersection in Mena...
1159. California................. Widen LaCosta Avenue in 3.000
Carlsbad...............
1160. Alaska..................... Improve roads in 2.350
Kotzebue...............
1161. New Hampshire.............. Construct Manchester 10.700
Airport access road in
Manchester.............
1162. Texas...................... Upgrade SH 130 in 1.000
Caldwell amd Williamson
Counties...............
1163. South Dakota............... Construct Heartland 6.505
Expressway Phase I.....
1164. New York................... Design and construct 16.260
Outer Harbor Bridge in
Buffalo................
1165. Pennsylvania............... Reconstruct State Route 9.000
2001 in Pike County....
1166. Ohio....................... Construct interchange at 6.000
I-480 in Independence,
Ohio...................
1167. New Mexico................. Improve US-70 southwest 10.000
of Portales............
1168. California................. Willits Bypass, Highway 1.000
101 in Mendocino
County, California.....
[[Page H1948]]
1169. Florida.................... Widen US-192 between 25.000
County Route 532 and I-
95 in Brevard and
Osceola Counties.......
1170. Georgia.................... Widen US-84 South from 3.200
US-82 to the Ware
County Line in Waycross
and Ware Counties......
1171. New Hampshire.............. Reconstruct bridge over 3.000
the Connecticut River
between Lebanon, NH and
White River Junction,
VT.....................
1172. Ohio....................... Conduct feasibility 0.700
study for the
construction of
Muskingum County South
93-22-40 connector.....
1173. Georgia.................... Reconstruct SR-26/US-60 3.550
from Bull River to
Lazaretto Creek........
1174. Wisconsin.................. Improve Janesville 4.000
transportation.........
1175. Illinois................... Reconstruct US-30 in 9.000
Joliet.................
1176. New Mexico................. Complete the Paseo del 7.500
Norte East Corridor in
Bernalillo County......
1177. Michigan................... Construct I-96/Beck 2.600
Wixom Road interchange.
1178. Pennsylvania............... Construct US-322 25.000
Conchester Highway
between US-1 and PA-452
1179. New Mexico................. Extend Unser Boulevard 1.000
in Albuquerque.........
1180. Arkansas................... Conduct planning for 1.000
highway 278 and rail
for the Warren/
Monticello Arkansas
Intermodal Complex.....
1181. Washington................. Widen SR-543 from I-5 to 3.616
International Boundary,
Washington.............
1182. New York................... Construct congestion 1.000
mitigation project for
Smithtown..............
1183. Mississippi................ Widen MS-15 from Laurel 10.000
to Louiseville.........
1184. Pennsylvania............... Construct Abbey Trails 0.500
in Abington Township...
1185. Mississippi................ Construct East Metro 3.500
Corridor in Rankin
County, Mississippi....
1186. Utah....................... Construct I-15 8.000
interchange at
Atkinville.............
1187. California................. Improve SR-70 from 15.000
Marysville Bypass to
Oroville Freeway.......
1188. New Hampshire.............. Construct Conway bypass 7.100
from Madison to
Bartlett...............
1189. New York................... Improve the Route 31/I- 2.473
81 Bridge in Watertown.
1190. Pennsylvania............... Relocate PA-113 at 3.000
Creamery Village in
Skippack...............
1191. Indiana.................... Upgrade 4 warning 0.400
devices on north/south
rail line from Terre
Haute to Evansville....
1192. Pennsylvania............... Construct noise 0.480
abatement barriers
along US-581 from I-83
2 miles west in
Cumberland County......
1193. Louisiana.................. Install computer signal 6.500
synchronization system
in Baton Rouge.........
1194. Alabama.................... Construct US-231/I-10 1.350
Freeway Connector from
the Alabama border to
Dothan.................
1195. Michigan................... Improve I-94 in 5.000
Kalamazoo County.......
1196. Florida.................... Construct Englewood 10.000
Interstate connector
from River Road to I-75
in Sarasota and
Charlotte Counties.....
1197. New York................... Conduct scope and design 16.500
study of Hamilton
Street interchange in
Erwin..................
1198. Alabama.................... Extend I-759 in Etowah 15.000
County.................
1199. Pennsylvania............... US-209 Marshall's Creek 10.000
Traffic Relief project
in Monroe County.......
1200. Georgia.................... Construct the Fall Line 23.000
Freeway from Bibb to
Richmond Counties......
1201. Indiana.................... Construct SR-9 bypass in 3.150
Greenfield.............
1202. Illinois................... Construct Alton Bypass 2.500
from IL-40 to
Fosterburg Road........
1203. New York................... Replace of Route 92 4.000
Limestone Creek Bridge
in Manlius.............
1204. Indiana.................... Upgrade 14 warning 1.400
devices on east/west
rail line from Gary to
Auburn.................
1205. New York................... Improve 6th and Columbia 0.700
Street project in
Elmira.................
1206. Michigan................... Improve Kent County 11.280
Airport road access in
Grand Rapids, Michigan.
1207. Arkansas................... Enhance area around the 0.400
Paris Courthouse in the
vicinity of Arkansas
Scenic Highway 22 and
Arkansas Scenic Highway
309, Paris Arkansas....
1208. Virginia................... Downtown Staunton 0.500
Streetscape Plan--Phase
I in Staunton..........
1209. New York................... Construct CR-85 from 0.675
Foster Avenue to CR97
in Suffolk County......
1210. California................. Construct interchange 10.000
between I-15 and Main
Street in Hesperia,
California.............
1211. Pennsylvania............... Construct Ardmore 0.500
Streetscape project....
1212. New York................... Reconstruct Route 25/ 1.000
Route 27 intersection
in St. Lawrence County.
1213. Connecticut................ Relocate and realign 4.800
Route 72 in Bristol....
1214. Pennsylvania............... Improve Park Avenue/PA 0.600
36 in Blair County.....
1215. Virginia................... Construct Route 288 in 22.000
the Richmond
Metropolitan Area......
1216. New York................... Construct city of Glen 5.000
Cove waterfront
improvements...........
1217. North Carolina............. Upgrade and improve US- 20.000
19 from Maggie Valley
to Cherokee............
1218. New York................... Construct Eastern Long 15.000
Island Scenic Byway in
Suffolk County.........
1219. Pennsylvania............... Widen SR-247 and SR-2008 10.900
between 84 and
Lackawanna Valley
Industrial Highway for
the Moosic Mountain
Business Park..........
1220. Louisiana.................. Construct and equip 5.400
Transportation
Technology and
Emergency Preparedness
Center in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana..............
1221. Pennsylvania............... Reconstruct I-95/Street 7.500
Road interchange in
Bucks County...........
1222. Mississippi................ Widen State Route 24 1.250
from Liberty to I-55...
1223. New York................... Initiate study and 2.000
subsequent development
and engineering of an
international trade
corridor in St.
Lawrence County........
1224. Missouri................... Construct Highway 36 3.496
Hannibal Bridge and
approaches in Marion
County.................
1225. New York................... Reconstruct Ridge Road 0.160
Bridge in Orange County
1226. New Jersey................. Reconstruct South 8.000
Pembrton Road from
Route 206 to Hanover
Street.................
1227. Ohio....................... Improve Alum Creek Drive 7.000
from I-270 to Frebis
Avenue in Franklin
County.................
1228. Ohio....................... Construct SR-315 Ohio 3.000
State University Ramp
project in Franklin
County.................
1229. North Carolina............. Construct US-64/264 in 2.000
Dare County............
1230. New Mexico................. Improve US-70 from I-25 25.000
to Organ in New Mexico.
1231. Kentucky................... Construct connection 3.000
between Natcher Bridge
and KY-60 east of
Owensboro..............
1232. California................. Widen 5th Street and 1.000
replace 5th Street
bridge in Highland,
California.............
1233. New Mexico................. Reconstruct US-84/US-285 15.000
from Santa Fe to
Espanola...............
1234. Iowa....................... Improve IA-60 Corridor 8.800
from LeMar to MN State
line...................
1235. Louisiana.................. Construct Leeville 1.500
Bridge on LA-1.........
1236. Tennessee.................. Reconstruct US-27 in 3.000
Morgan County..........
1237. Texas...................... Improve US 82, East-West 16.400
Freeway between Memphis
Avenue and University
Avenue.................
1238. Alabama.................... Construction of Eastern 23.000
Black Warrior River
Bridge and right-of-way
acquisition and
construction of an
extension of the Black
Warrior Parkway from US-
82 to US-43 in
Tuscaloosa County......
1239. North Carolina............. Construct US-117, the 4.500
Elizabeth City Bypass
in Pasquotank County...
1240. Florida.................... Construct Cross Seminole 1.500
Trail connection in
Seminole County........
1241. New York................... Construct County Road 50 1.360
in the vicinity of
Windsor Avenue.........
[[Page H1949]]
1242. Ohio....................... Construct greenway 2.300
enhancements in Madison
1243. Nebraska................... Conduct corridor study 1.000
of NE-35 alternative
and modified route in
Norfolk, Wayne and
Dakota City............
1244. New York................... Improve Broadway in 2.520
North Castle in
Westchester County.....
1245. Louisiana.................. Extend Louisiana Highway 8.000
42 between US-61 and I-
10 in Ascension Parish.
1246. Alaska..................... Extend Kenai Spur 8.000
Highway-North Road in
Kenai Peninsula Borough
1247. Utah....................... Construct underpass at 3.900
100th South in Sandy...
1248. Connecticut................ Construct Seaview Avenue 10.000
Corridor project.......
1249. New Jersey................. Replace Maple Grange 1.800
Road bridge over
Pochuck Creek in Sussex
County.................
1250. New York................... Construct congestion 2.500
mitigation project for
Riverhead..............
1251. Pennsylvania............... Improve PA 453 from 1.000
Water Street to Tyrone
in Huntingdon County...
1252. Oklahoma................... Reconstruct County Road 0.250
237 from Indiahoma to
Wichita Mountains
Wildlife Refuge........
1253. Washington................. Construct 192nd Street 5.000
from Sr-14 to SE 15th..
1254. Ohio....................... Construct Licking- 1.500
Thornwood Connector in
Licking County.........
1255. Pennsylvania............... Improve I-95/PA-413 7.500
Interchange in Bucks
County.................
1256. Florida.................... Construct US-98/Thomas 15.000
Drive interchange......
1257. Texas...................... Widen Meacham Boulevard 3.500
from I-35W to FM-146
and extend Meacham
Boulevard from west of
FM-156 to North Main
Street.................
1258. Utah....................... Construct Cache Valley 7.000
Highway in Logan.......
1259. Texas...................... Relocation of Indiana 9.600
Avenue between 19th
street to North Loop
289 and Quaker Avenue
intersection...........
1260. Kentucky................... Reconstruct KY-210 from 8.000
Hodgenville to Morning
Star Road, Larue County
1261. Georgia.................... Construct Rome to 4.112
Memphis Highway in
Floyd and Bartow
Counties...............
1262. Pennsylvania............... Realign West 38th Street 7.200
from Shunpike Road to
Myrtle Street in Erie
County.................
1263. New York................... Upgrade Chenango County 1.600
Route 32 in Norwich....
1264. California................. Rehabilitate historic 3.500
train depot in San
Bernadino..............
1265. Louisiana.................. Construct the Southern 5.500
extension of I-49 from
Lafayette to the
Westbank Expressway....
1266. New York................... Replace Kennedy-class 40.000
ferries, Staten Island.
1267. Florida.................... Construct South 9.000
Connector Road and
Airport Road
interchange in
Jacksonville, Florida..
1268. Virginia................... Construct the Lynchburg/ 1.500
Madison Heights bypass
in Lynchburg...........
1269. California................. Widen I-15 from 24.000
Victorville to Barstow
in California..........
1270. New York................... Traffic Mitigation 3.000
Project on William
Street and Losson Road
in Cheektowaga.........
1271. Pennsylvania............... Improve PA 56 from I-99 1.000
to Somerset County Line
in Bedford County......
1272. Pennsylvania............... Renovate Harrisburg 2.500
Transportation Center
in Dauphin County......
1273. Washington................. Widen Columbia Center 1.610
Boulevard in Kennewick.
1274. Indiana.................... Improve State Road 31 in 0.500
Columbus...............
1275. New York................... Construct pedestrian 0.250
access bridge from
Utica Union Station....
1276. Pennsylvania............... Improve Route 219 in 1.000
Clearfield County......
1277. Kentucky................... Construct KY-70 from 2.000
Cave City to Mammoth
Cave...................
1278. New Jersey................. Replace Groveville- 3.200
Allentown Road bridge
in Hanilton............
1279. Washington................. Construct Mount Vernon 3.500
multi-modal
transportation facility
project in Mount
Vernon, Washington.....
1280. New Jersey................. Construct pedestrian 3.000
bridge in Washington
Township...............
1281. Indiana.................... Install traffic 0.900
signalization system in
Muncie.................
1282. New Mexico................. Improve 84/285 between 5.000
Espanola and Hernandez.
1283. Florida.................... Widen of State Road 44 2.250
in Volusia County......
1284. Maryland................... Construct improvements a 10.000
I-270/MD-187
interchange............
1285. Louisiana.................. Increase capacity of 2.000
Lake Pontchartrain
Causeway...............
1286. Pennsylvania............... Construct Walnut Street 1.000
pedestrian bridge in
Dauphin County.........
1287. Pennsylvania............... Improve US-22/PA-866 2.000
Intersection in Blair
County.................
1288. Indiana.................... Expand 126th Street in 1.000
Carmel.................
1289. Ohio....................... Upgrade 1 warning device 0.100
on the rail line from
Marion to Ridgeway.....
1290. Illinois................... Conduct Midwest Regional 0.400
intermodal facility
feasibility study in
Rochelle...............
1291. Minnesota.................. Construct Trunk Highway 15.000
610/10 from Trunk
Highway 169 in Brooklyn
Park to I-94 in Maple
Grove..................
1292. Oklahoma................... Improve Battiest-Pickens 3.000
Road between Battiest
and Pickens in
McCurtain County.......
1293. Mississippi................ Widen US-61 from 1.250
Louisiana State line to
Adams County...........
1294. California................. Construct capital 5.000
improvements along I-
680 corridor...........
1295. Arkansas................... Study and construct Van 0.300
Buren intermodal port
facility in Van Buren,
Arkansas...............
1296. New York................... Construct access road 0.240
from Lake Avenue to
Milestrip Road in
Blasdell...............
1297. Iowa....................... Construct I-29 airport 6.200
interchange overpass in
Sioux City.............
1298. Pennsylvania............... Construct PA-309 4.400
Sumneytown Pike
Connector..............
1299. Kentucky................... Construct Savage-Cedar 0.350
Knob Bridge at Koger
Creek..................
1300. Washington................. Widen SR-527 from 112th 4.700
SE to 132nd SE in
Everett................
1301. Kentucky................... Complete I-65 upgrade 5.000
from Elizabethtown to
Tennessee State line...
1302. Illinois................... Replace Gaumer Bridge 0.900
near Alvin.............
1303. South Carolina............. Construct I-26/US-1 12.000
connector in Columbia..
1304. Illinois................... Construct Sullivan Road 10.000
Bridge over the Fox
River..................
1305. California................. Extend State Route 7 in 10.000
Imperial County........
1306. South Carolina............. Construct high priority 10.000
surface transportation
projects eligible for
Federal-aid highway
funds..................
1307. New York................... Construct Erie Canal 3.000
Preserve I-90 rest stop
in Port Byron..........
1308. Virginia................... Improve Harrisonburg 0.500
East Side roadways in
Harrisonburg...........
1309. Texas...................... Improve I-35 West from 4.000
Spur 280 to I-820 in
Fort Worth.............
1310. Pennsylvania............... Construct US-202 Section 5.000
600 Phase I Early
Action project in Upper
Gwynedd and Lower
Gwynedd................
1311. Pennsylvania............... PA 26 over Piney Creek 2- 0.800
bridges in Bedford
County.................
1312. Florida.................... Widen and realign Eller 5.600
Drive in Port
Everglades, Florida....
1313. Illinois................... Improve access to 1.600
Rantoul Aviation Center
in Rantoul.............
1314. Florida.................... Deploy magnetic lane 0.500
marking system on I-4..
1315. Alaska..................... Construct the a bridge 20.000
joining the Island of
Gravina to the
Community of Ketchikan
on Revilla Island......
1316. Louisiana.................. Conduct feasibility 5.000
study, design and
construction of
connector between
Louisiana Highway 16 to
I-12 in Livingston
Parish.................
[[Page H1950]]
1317. New York................... Improve Hardscrabble 2.880
Road from Route 22 to
June Road in North
Salem..................
1318. California................. Enhance Fort Bragg and 0.500
Willitis passenger
stations...............
1319. New Mexico................. Improve Uptown in 1.500
Bernalillo County......
1320. Missouri................... Construction of airport 5.000
ground transportation
terminal for the
Springfield/Branson
Airport intermodal
facility in
Springfield, Missouri..
1321. North Carolina............. Widen US-421 from North 7.400
Carolina Route 194 to
two miles East of US-
221....................
1322. Kentucky................... Construct US-127: 11.215
$800,000 for the
segment between the
Albany Bypass and KY-
90; $10,375,000 for the
segment between the
Albany Bypass and
Clinton County High
School; $40,000 for the
segment between KY696
and the Tennessee State
line...................
1323. Missouri................... Upgrade US-71 1.000
interchange in
Carthage, Missouri.....
1324. Ohio....................... Reconstruct Morgan 0.500
County 37 in Morgan
County.................
1325. New York................... Construct Maybrook 1.404
Corridor bikeway in
Dutchess County........
1326. New York................... Construct Poughkeepsie 3.750
Intermodal Facility in
Poughkeepsie...........
1327. Illinois................... Construct Orchard Road 7.000
Bridge over the Fox
River..................
1328. Pennsylvania............... Improve PA-23 Corridor 4.000
from US-30 Bypass
between Lancaster
County line and
Morgantown.............
1329. California................. Improve State Route 57 0.985
interchange at Lambert
Road in Brea...........
1330. Texas...................... Upgrade State Highway 35 12.000
Yoakum District in
Matagorda and Buazovia
Counties...............
1331. Pennsylvania............... Improve T-344 Bridge 0.700
over Mahantango Creek
in Snyder County.......
1332. Ohio....................... Complete safety/bicycle 0.030
path in Madison
Township...............
1333. New Jersey................. Upgrade Montvale/ 0.500
Chestnut Ridge Road and
Grand Avenue
intersection at Garden
State Parkway in Bergan
County.................
1334. Kentucky................... Widen US-27 from Norwood 30.000
to Eubank..............
1335. California................. Extend Highway 41 in 10.000
Madera County..........
1336. New York................... Improve and reconstruct 0.350
Stony Street in York
Town...................
1337. Pennsylvania............... Complete Broad Street 1.770
ramps at Route 611
bypass in Bucks County.
1338. Tennessee.................. Construct State Route 2.400
131 from Gill Road to
Bishop Road............
1339. Georgia.................... Construct the Savannah 10.000
River Parkway in
Bullock, Jenkins,
Screven and Effinghaus
Counties...............
1340. Illinois................... Improve Illinois Route 2.300
29 in Sangamon and
Christian Counties.....
1341. Mississippi................ Widen State Route 6 from 15.000
Pontotoc to US-45 at
Tupelo in Mississippi..
1342. Kansas..................... Construct road and rail 35.000
grade separations in
Wichita................
1343. Illinois................... Widen US-20 in Freeport. 5.100
1344. Minnesota.................. Construct Mankato South 7.000
Route in Mankato.......
1345. Michigan................... Construct interchange at 11.000
Eastman Avenue/US-10 in
Midland................
1346. California................. Highway 65 improvement 4.000
and mitigation project.
1347. Pennsylvania............... Improve access to 1.500
Raystown in Huntingdon
County.................
1348. Indiana.................... Construct East 79th from 4.000
Sunnyside Road to
Oaklandon Road in
Lawrence...............
1349. Georgia.................... Widen and reconstruct 3.400
Corder Road from
Pineview Drive to the
Russell Parkway........
1350. New York................... Rahabilitate Jay Covered 1.000
Bridge in Essex County.
1351. New York................... Improve Long Ridge Road 2.800
from Pound Ridge Road
to Connecticut State
line...................
1352. Mississippi................ Widen MS-45 from 4.500
Brooksville to US-82 in
Mississippi............
1353. Ohio....................... Upgrade US-30 in Hancock 15.000
1354. Illinois................... Construct an interchange 7.500
at I-90 and Illinois
Route 173 in Rockford..
1355. New York................... Construct Route 17- 4.800
Lowman Crossover in
Ashland................
1356. New Jersey................. Rehabilitate East 3.600
Ridgewood Avenue over
Route 17 in Bergan
County.................
1357. Pennsylvania............... St. Thomas Signals Hade 0.200
and Jack Rds US-30 in
Franklin County........
1358. New York................... Improve Route 9 in 1.560
Dutchess County........
1359. Ohio....................... Rail mitigation and 12.000
improvement projects
from Vermillion to
Conneaut...............
1360. Virginia................... Complete North Section 10.000
of Fairfax County
Parkway in Fairfax
County, Virginia.......
1361. Arkansas................... Conduct design study and 5.000
acquire right of way on
US-71 in the vicinity
of Fort Chaffee, Fort
Smith..................
1362. Pennsylvania............... Realign Moulstown Road/ 2.000
Route 194/Eisenhower
Drive York County......
1363. Florida.................... Construct Greater 1.341
Orlando Aviation
Authority Consolidated
Surface Access in
Orlando................
1364. Florida.................... Construct US17/92 and SR- 2.750
436 interchange in
Orange/Osceola/Seminole
County region..........
1365. Washington................. Construct State Route 7-- 0.600
Elbe rest area and
interpretive facility
in Pierce County, WA...
1366. Virginia................... Improve the RIC airport 3.000
connector road in
Richmond...............
1367. Tennessee.................. Improve State Road 60 1.600
from Waterville to US-
64 in Bradley County...
1368. Pennsylvania............... Relocate US-219 6.000
Ridgeway, Pennsylvania,
truck bypass connector
along Osterhout Street.
1369. Pennsylvania............... Construct PA 36 1.000
Convention Center
Connector in Blair
County.................
1370. New Jersey................. Construct US-22/Chimney 23.000
Rock Road interchange
in Somerset County.....
1371. Alaska..................... Improve Dalton Highway 5.000
from Fairbanks to
Prudhoe Bay............
1372. Pennsylvania............... Allegheny Trail from 12.000
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania to
Cumberland, Maryland...
1373. Washington................. Reconstruct I-21/Keys 8.640
Road intersection in
Yakima.................
1374. Pennsylvania............... Upgrade 2 sections of US- 1.500
6 in Tioga County......
1375. Illinois................... Congestion mitigation 12.000
for Illinois Route 31
and Illinois Route 62
intersection in
Algonquin..............
1376. Illinois................... Construct Towanda-Barnes 7.760
Road in Mclean County..
1377. Pennsylvania............... Construct Lackawanna 0.500
River Heritage Trail in
Lackawanna.............
1378. Pennsylvania............... Reconstruct I-81 3.520
Plainfield interchange
in Cumberland County...
1379. Kentucky................... Reconstruct US-127: 11.500
$7,500,000 for the
segment between Dry
Ridge Road and US-231
and US-31; $4,000,000
for the segment between
Allen-Warren County
line and Dry Ridge Road
1380. Tennessee.................. Construct State Route 30 10.320
from Athens to Etowah
in McMinn County.......
1381. Arizona.................... Replace US-93 Hoover Dam 20.000
Bridge.................
1382. Iowa....................... Conduct study of Port of 0.100
Des Moines, Des Moines.
1383. Missouri................... Bull Shoals Lake Ferry 0.697
in Taney County,
Missouri...............
1384. Pennsylvania............... Widen PA-413 in Bucks 2.000
County.................
1385. Mississippi................ Construct I-20 1.000
interchange at Pirate
Cove...................
1386. Texas...................... Complete State Highway 10.000
35 in Aransas County...
1387. California................. Construct interchange 8.000
between I-15 and SR-18
in San Bernardino,
California.............
1388. Pennsylvania............... Improve Route 94 8.000
Corridor through
Hanover to Maryland
State Line.............
1389. Ohio....................... Upgrade 2 warning 0.200
devices on the rail
north/south line from
Columbus to Toledo.....
1390. Pennsylvania............... Resurface current 219 6.500
bypass at Bradford.....
1391. New Jersey................. Construct Route 17 1.500
bridge over the
Susquehanna and Western
Rail line in Rochelle
Park...................
[[Page H1951]]
1392. Louisiana.................. Replace ferry in 2.150
Plaquemines Parish.....
1393. New York................... Construct Hudson River 0.455
scenic overlook from
Route 9 to Waterfront
in Poughkeepsie........
1394. California................. Complete State Route 56 4.000
in San Diego...........
1395. New Jersey................. Replace Clove Road 1.000
bridge over tributary
of Mill Brook and Clove
Brook in Sussex County.
1396. California................. Construct interchanges 3.000
for I-10 in Coachella
Valley, Riverside
County.................
1397. South Dakota............... Construct US-16 Hell 0.441
Canyon Bridge and
approaches in Custer
County.................
1398. Wisconsin.................. Reconstruct U.S. Highway 26.000
151, Waupun to Fond du
Lac....................
1399. Indiana.................... Construct I-70/Six 19.950
Points interchange in
Marion and Hendricks
County.................
1400. Wyoming.................... Reconstruct Cheyenne 8.000
Area Norris Viaduct....
1401. California................. Extend State Route 52 in 5.000
San Diego..............
1402. Kansas..................... Reconstruct K-7 from 3.100
Lone Elm Road to
Harrison...............
1403. Mississippi................ Construct US-84 from 1.250
Eddiceton to Auburn
Road...................
1404. Florida.................... Construct County Road 8.000
470 Interchange in Lake
County.................
1405. Virginia................... Widen I-81 in Roanoke 6.000
and Botetourt Counties
and in Rockbridge,
Augusta and Rockingham
Counties...............
1406. California................. Improve and modify the 22.400
Port of Hueneme
Intermodal Corridor--
Phase II in Ventura
County.................
1407. New York................... Construct Bay Shore Road 8.000
SR-231 to SR-27 in
Suffolk County.........
1408. Alabama.................... Complete I-59 4.000
interchange in Dekalb
County.................
1409. Michigan................... Construct interchange at 4.000
US-10/Bay City Road in
Midland................
1410. Connecticut................ Improve Route 4 1.800
intersection in
Harwinton, Connecticut.
1411. Colorado................... Construct Wadsworth 1.000
Boulevard improvement
project in Arvada......
1412. Connecticut................ Reconstruct Post Office 1.500
Town Farm Road in
Enfield, Connecticut...
1413. Pennsylvania............... Widen and signalize 4.300
Sumneytown Pike and
Forty Foot Road in
Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania...........
1414. Tennessee.................. Improve State Road 95 4.900
from Westover Drive to
SR-62 in Roane and
Anderson Counties......
1415. New York................... FJ&G Rail/Trail Project 0.700
in Fulton County.......
1416. Pennsylvania............... Construct Towamencin 2.900
Township multimodal
center.................
1417. Michigan................... Relocate US-31 from 18.000
River Road to Naomi
Road in Berrian County.
1418. Alaska..................... Extend West Douglas Road 3.300
in Goldbelt and Juneau.
1419. Illinois................... Construct US-67 in 6.800
Madison and Jersey
Counties...............
1420. Idaho...................... Reconstruct US-95 from 10.000
Bellgrove to Mica......
1421. Idaho...................... Construct US-95: 15.000
Sandcreek Alternate
Route in Sandpoint.....
1422. Ohio....................... Construct highway-rail 3.000
grade separations on
Snow Road in Brook Park
1423. New York................... Construct Southern State 4.825
Parkway ITS between NYS
Route 110 and Sagtikos
Parkway................
1424. Florida.................... Widen US-17/92 in 1.800
Volusia County.........
1425. Connecticut................ Realign Route 4 2.800
intersection in
Farmington.............
1426. Louisiana.................. Construct Louisiana 0.750
Highway 1 from the Gulf
of Mexico to US-90.....
1427. Kentucky................... Construct Kentucky 31E 1.000
from Bardstowns to Salt
River..................
1428. Virginia................... Constuct Third Bridge/ 5.000
Tunnel Crossing of
Hampton Road...........
1429. Washington................. Widen Cook Road in 3.100
Skagit County,
Washington.............
1430. Pennsylvania............... Construct 25.5 miles of 0.540
the Perkiomen Trail....
1431. Louisiana.................. Construct Port of South 0.700
Louisiana Connector in
Saint John the Baptist
Parish.................
1432. New York................... Construct CR-96 from 0.275
Great South Bay to
Montauk Highway in
Suffolk County.........
1433. Pennsylvania............... Construct US-6 2.400
Tunkhannock Bypass in
Wyoming County.........
1434. Alabama.................... Construct Eastern Shore 1.355
Trail project in
Fairhope, Alabama......
1435. Georgia.................... Construct North River 2.900
Causeway and Bridge,
St. Mary's County......
1436. Utah....................... Construct Phase II of 10.000
the University Avenue
Interchange in Provo...
1437. California................. Widen SR-71 from 13.000
Riverside County to SR-
91.....................
1438. Arkansas................... Construct access route 16.000
to Northwest Arkansas
Regional Airport in
Highfill, Arkansas.....
1439. California................. Construct Ocean 20.000
Boulevard and Terminal
Island Freeway
interchange in Long
Beach, California......
1440. Nebraska................... Widen and reconstruct I- 8.000
680 from Pacific Street
to Dodge Street in
Douglas County.........
1441. Indiana.................... Lafayette Railroad 29.400
relocation project in
Lafayette, Indiana.....
1442. Florida.................... Construct pedestrian 2.500
overpass from Florida
National Scenic Trail
over I-4...............
1443. Michigan................... Construct interchange at 1.500
I-75/North Down River
Road...................
1444. New York................... Construct CR-96 from 0.435
Montauk Highway to
Sunrise Highway in
Suffolk County.........
1445. Connecticut................ Widen Route 10 from 4.640
vicinity of Lazy Lane
to River Street in
Southington,
Connecticut............
1446. Connecticut................ Widen Route 4 in 2.800
Torrington.............
1447. Washington................. Construct Port of 2.500
Longview Industrial
Rail Corridor and Fibre
Way Overpass in
Longview...............
1448. Virginia................... Construct I-95/State 4.000
Route 627 interchange
in Stafford County.....
1449. Colorado................... Complete the Powers 12.000
Boulevard north
extension in Colorado
Springs................
1450. Ohio....................... Construct St. 0.500
Clairsville Bike Path
in Belmont County......
1451. South Dakota............... Construct Aberdeen Truck 2.576
bypass.................
1452. New York................... Conduct extended needs 4.000
study for the Tappan
Zee Bridge.............
1453. Washington................. Widen SR-99 between 3.000
148th Street and King
County Line in Lynnwood
1454. Texas...................... Construct State Highway 32.000
121 from I-30 to US-67
in Cleburne............
1455. Oklahoma................... Reconstruct US-70 from 7.500
Broken Bow to Arkansas
State line in McCurtain
County.................
1456. Georgia.................... Conduct study of a 25.000
multimodal
transportation corridor
along GA-400...........
1457. New York................... Reconstruct and widen 5.500
Route 78 from I-90 to
Route 15...............
1458. Nebraska................... Construct South Beltway 5.500
in Linclon.............
1459. Nebraska................... Replace US-81 bridge 1.500
between Yankton, south
Dakota and Cedar
County, Nebaska........
1460. Florida.................... Construct Alden Road 0.700
Improvement Project in
Orange County..........
1461. California................. Improve and widen Forest 7.000
Hill Road in Placer
County.................
1462. Washington................. Improve Hillsboro Street/ 3.550
Highway 395
intersection in Pasco..
1463. Missouri................... Construct Hermann Bridge 1.544
on Highway 19 in
Montgomery and
Gasconade Counties.....
1464. Utah....................... Widen and improve 123rd/ 7.000
126th South from 700
East to Jordan River in
Draper.................
1465. Illinois................... Improve Constitution 3.500
Avenue in Peoria.......
1466. New York................... Reconstruct Washington 1.700
County covered bridge
project................
1467. New York................... Reconstruct Stoneleigh 3.920
Avenue in Putnam County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page H1952]]
SEC. 128. WOODROW WILSON MEMORIAL BRIDGE.
Section 407(a) of the National Highway System Designation
Act of 1995 (109 Stat. 630-631) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(2) by striking ``(a)'' and all that follows through the
period at the end of paragraph (1) and inserting the
following:
``(a) Conveyances.--
``(1) Conveyance to states and district of columbia.--
``(A) General authority.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary
shall convey to the State of Virginia, the State of Maryland,
and the District of Columbia all right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to the Bridge, including such
related riparian rights and interests in land underneath the
Potomac River as are necessary to carry out the project.
``(B) Acceptance of title.--Except as provided in paragraph
(3), upon conveyance by the Secretary, the State of Virginia,
the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia shall
accept the right, title, and interest in and to the Bridge.
``(C) Consolidation of jurisdiction.--For the purpose of
making the conveyance under this paragraph, the Secretary of
the Interior and the head of any other Federal department or
agency that has jurisdiction over the land adjacent to the
Bridge shall transfer such jurisdiction to the Secretary.
``(D) Funds allocated.--No funds made available for the
high cost Interstate System reconstruction and improvement
program under section 160 of title 23, United States Code,
may be allocated for the Bridge before the State of Virginia,
the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia accept
right, title, and interest in and to the Bridge under this
paragraph.
``(2) Conveyance to authority.--After execution of the
agreement under subsection (c), the State of Virginia, State
of Maryland, and the District of Columbia shall convey to the
Authority their respective rights, titles, and interests in
and to the Bridge, including such related riparian rights and
interests in land underneath the Potomac River as are
necessary to carry out the Project. Except as provided in
paragraph (3), upon conveyance by the Secretary, the
Authority shall accept the right, title, and interest in and
to the Bridge and all duties and responsibilities associated
with the Bridge.''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), as redesignated by paragraph (1) of
this section, by striking ``conveyance under paragraph (1)''
and inserting ``conveyance under this subsection''.
SEC. 129. TRAINING.
(a) Training Positions for Welfare Recipients.--Section
140(a) is amended by inserting after the third sentence the
following: ``In implementing such programs, a State may
reserve training positions for persons who receive welfare
assistance from such State; except that the implementation of
any such program shall not cause current employees to be
displaced or current positions to be supplanted.''.
(b) Types of Training.--Section 140(b) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``and technology'' after ``construction'';
and
(B) by inserting after ``programs'' the following: ``, and
to develop and fund summer transportation institutes''; and
(2) in the last sentence by striking ``may be available''
and inserting ``may be utilized''.
(c) Heavy Equipment Operator Training Facility.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a heavy
equipment operator training facility in Hibbing, Minnesota.
The purpose of the facility shall be to develop an
appropriate curriculum for training, and to train operators
and future operators of heavy equipment in the safe use of
such equipment.
(2) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated out of
the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account)
$500,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to carry out
this subsection.
(3) Applicability of title 23.--Funds made available to
carry out this subsection shall be available for obligation
in the same manner as if such funds were apportioned under
chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; except that the
Federal share of the cost of establishment of the facility
under this subsection shall be 80 percent and such funds
shall remain available until expended.
(d) Motor Carrier Operator Vehicle and Training Facility.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall make grants to the
State of Pennsylvania to establish and operate an advanced
tractor trailer safety and operator training facility in
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. The purpose of the facility shall
be to develop and coordinate an advance curriculum for the
training of operators and future operators of tractor
trailers. The facility shall conduct training on the test
track at Letterkenny Army Depot and the unused segment of the
Pennsylvania Turnpike located in Bedford County,
Pennsylvania. The facility shall be operated by a not-for-
profit entity and, when Federal assistance is no longer being
provided with respect to the facility, shall be privately
operated.
(2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(H) of
this Act, $500,000 per fiscal year shall be available to
carry out this subsection. Such funds shall remain available
until expended. The Federal share of the cost of
establishment and operation of the facility under this
subsection shall be 80 percent.
SEC. 130. TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FOR OLYMPIC CITIES.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide
assistance and support to State and local efforts on surface
and aviation-related transportation issues necessary to
obtain the national recognition and economic benefits of
participation in the International Olympic movement and the
International Paralympic movement by hosting international
quadrennial Olympic and Paralympic events in the United
States.
(b) Priority for Transportation Projects Related to Olympic
Events.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary may give priority to funding for a
transportation project related to an Olympic event from
funds available to carry out 1 or more of sections
144(g)(1) and 160 of title 23, United States Code, and
sections 5309 and 5326 of title 49, United States Code, if
the project meets the extraordinary needs associated with
an international quadrennial Olympic event and if the
project is otherwise eligible for assistance under such
section.
(c) Transportation Planning Activities.--The Secretary may
participate in planning activities of States, metropolitan
planning organizations, and sponsors of transportation
projects related to an international quadrennial Olympic
event under sections 134 and 135 of title 23, United States
Code, and in developing intermodal transportation plans
necessary for such projects in coordination with State and
local transportation agencies.
(d) Use of Administrative Expenses.--The Secretary may
provide assistance from funds deducted under section 104(a)
of title 23, United States Code, for the development of an
Olympic and Paralympic transportation management plan in
cooperation with an Olympic and a Paralympic Organizing
Committee responsible for hosting, and State and local
communities affected by, an international quadrennial Olympic
event.
(e) Transportation Projects Related to Olympic Events.--
(1) General authority.--The Secretary may provide
assistance to States and local governments in carrying out
transportation projects related to an international
quadrennial Olympic event. Such assistance may include
planning, capital, and operating assistance.
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the costs of
projects assisted under this subsection shall not exceed 80
percent. For purposes of determining the non-Federal share,
highway, aviation, and transit projects shall be considered a
program of projects.
(f) Eligible Governments.--A State or local government is
eligible to receive assistance under this section only if it
is hosting a venue that is part of an international
quadrennial Olympics that is officially selected by the
International Olympic Committee.
(g) Airport Development Projects.--
(1) Airport development defined.--Section 47102(3) of title
49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(H) Developing, in coordination with State and local
transportation agencies, intermodal transportation plans
necessary for Olympic-related projects at an airport.''.
(2) Discretionary grants.--Section 47115(d) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) the need for the project in order to meet the unique
demands of hosting international quadrennial Olympic
events.''.
SEC. 131. NATIONAL DEFENSE HIGHWAYS.
(a) Reconstruction Projects.--If the Secretary determines,
after consultation with the Secretary of Defense, that a
highway, or portion of a highway, located outside the United
States is important to the national defense, the Secretary
may carry out a project for the reconstruction of such
highway or portion of highway.
(b) Funding.--The Secretary may make available, from funds
appropriated for expenditure on the National Highway System,
not to exceed $20,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal
years 1998 through 2003 to carry out this section. Such sums
shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 132. MISCELLANEOUS SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS.
(a) Infrastructure Awareness Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to fund the
production of a documentary about infrastructure in
cooperation with a not-for-profit national public television
station and the National Academy of Engineering which shall
demonstrate how public works and infrastructure projects
stimulate job growth and the economy and contribute to the
general welfare of the nation.
(2) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated out of
the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account)
to carry out this section $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years
1998, 1999, and 2000. Such funds shall remain available until
expended.
(3) Applicability of title 23.--Funds authorized by this
subsection shall be available for obligation in the same
manner as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code; except that the Federal share
of the cost of any project under this subsection and the
availability of funds authorized by this subsection shall be
determined in accordance with this subsection.
(b) Study of Parking Facilities Adequacy.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the location and quantity of parking facilities at
commercial truck stops and travel plazas and public rest
areas that could be used by motor carriers to comply with
Federal hours of service rules. The study shall include an
inventory of current facilities serving the National Highway
System, analyze where shortages exist or are projected to
exist, and propose
[[Page H1953]]
a plan to reduce the shortages. The study shall be carried
out in cooperation with research entities representing motor
carriers, the travel plaza industry, and commercial motor
vehicle drivers.
(2) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2001, the Secretary
shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the
study with any recommendations the Secretary determines
appropriate as a result of the study.
(3) Funding.--From amounts set aside under section 104(a)
of title 23, United States Code, for each of fiscal years
1998, 1999, and 2000, the Secretary may use not to exceed
$500,000 per fiscal year to carry out this section.
SEC. 133. ELIGIBILITY.
(a) Ambassador Bridge Access, Michigan.--Notwithstanding
section 129 of title 23, United States Code, or any other
provision of law, improvements to and construction of
access roads, approaches, and related facilities (such as
signs, lights, and signals) necessary to connect the
Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, Michigan, to the Interstate
System shall be eligible for funds apportioned under
sections 104(b)(1) and 104(b)(3) of such title.
(b) Cuyahoga River Bridge, Ohio.--Notwithstanding section
149 of title 23, United States Code, or any other provision
of law, a project to construct a new bridge over the Cuyahoga
River in Cleveland, Ohio, shall be eligible for funds
apportioned under section 104(b)(2) of such title.
(c) Connecticut.--In fiscal year 1998, the State of
Connecticut may transfer any funds remaining available for
obligation under the section 104(b)(5)(A) of title 23, United
States Code, as in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of this Act, for construction of the Interstate
System to any other program eligible for assistance under
chapter 1 of such title. Before making any distribution of
the obligation limitation under section 103(c)(4) of this
Act, the Secretary shall make available to the State of
Connecticut sufficient obligation authority under section
103(c) of this Act to obligate funds available for transfer
under this subsection.
(d) San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, California.--In
accordance with section 502 of this Act, a project to
reconstruct the Interstate System approach to the western end
of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and the ramps
connecting the bridge to Treasure Island shall be eligible
for funds under section 160 of title 23, United States Code,
relating to the high-cost Interstate System reconstruction
and improvement program.
(e) Southern California.--Notwithstanding section 120(l)(1)
of title 23, United States Code--
(1) private entity expenditures to construct the SR-91 toll
road located in Orange County, California, from SR-55 to the
Riverside County line may be credited toward the State
matching share for any Federal-aid project beginning
construction after the SR-91 toll road was opened to traffic;
and
(2) private expenditures for the future SR-125 toll road in
San Diego County, California, from SR-905 to San Miguel Road
may be credited against the State match share for Federal-aid
highway projects beginning after SR-125 is opened to traffic.
(f) International Bridge, Sault Ste. Marie, MI.--The
International Bridge Authority, or its successor
organization, shall be permitted to continue collection of
tolls for the maintenance, operation, capital improvements,
and future expansions to the International Bridge and its
approaches, plaza areas, and associated buildings and
structures.
(g) Information Services.--A food business that would
otherwise be eligible to display a mainline business logo on
a specific service food sign described in section 2G-5.7(4)
of part IIG of the 1988 edition of the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways under the
requirements specified in that section, but for the fact that
the business is open 6 days a week, cannot be prohibited from
inclusion on such a food sign.
SEC. 134. FISCAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND OTHER AMENDMENTS.
(a) Advanced Construction.--Section 115 is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by moving the text of paragraph (1) (including
subparagraphs (A) and (B)) 2 ems to the left;
(B) by striking ``(1) In general.--'';
(C) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and
(D) by striking ``(A) prior'' and inserting ``(1) prior'';
and
(E) by striking ``(B) the project'' and inserting ``(2) the
project'';
(2) by striking subsection (c); and
(3) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).
(b) Availability of Funds.--Section 118 is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading for subsection (b) by
striking ``; Discretionary Projects''; and
(2) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
``(e) Effect of Release of Funds.--Any Federal-aid highway
funds released by the final payment on a project, or by the
modification of the project agreement, shall be credited to
the same program funding category previously apportioned to
the State and shall be immediately available for
expenditure.''.
(c) Federal Share Payable.--Section 120 is amended in each
of subsections (a) and (b) by striking ``shall be'' and
inserting ``shall not exceed''.
(d) Payments to States for Construction.--Section 121 is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking the second sentence; and
(B) by striking the last sentence and inserting the
following: ``Such payments may also be made for the value of
the materials (1) which have been stockpiled in the vicinity
of such construction in conformity to plans and
specifications for the projects, and (2) which are not in the
vicinity of such construction if the Secretary determines
that because of required fabrication at an off-site location
the material cannot be stockpiled in such vicinity.'';
(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Project Agreement.--No payment shall be made under
this chapter except for a project covered by a project
agreement. After completion of the project in accordance with
the project agreement, a State shall be entitled to payment
out of the appropriate sums apportioned or allocated to it of
the unpaid balance of the Federal share payable on account of
such project.'';
(3) by striking subsections (c) and (d); and
(4) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (c).
(e) Advances to States.--Section 124 is amended--
(1) by striking ``(a)'' the first place it appears; and
(2) by striking subsection (b).
(f) Diversion.--Section 126, and the item relating to such
section in the table of sections for chapter 1, are repealed.
(g) State Highway Department.--Section 302 is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following:
``Compliance with this provision shall have no effect on the
eligibility of costs.'';
(2) by striking ``(a)''; and
(3) by striking subsection (b).
(h) Bridge Commissions.--Public Law 87-441, relating to
bridge commissions created by Congress and Federal approval
of membership of such commissions, is repealed.
(i) Other Amendments.--
(1) Section 1023(h)(1) of Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 127 note) is amended by
striking ``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
inserting ``September 30, 2003''.
(2) Section 127(a) is amended by inserting before the next
to the last sentence the following: ``With respect to the
State of Colorado, vehicles designed to carry 2 or more
precast concrete panels shall be considered a nondivisible
load.''.
(3) Section 127(a) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The State of Louisiana may allow, by special
permit, the operation of vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
of up to 100,000 pounds for the hauling of sugarcane during
the harvest season, not to exceed 100 days annually.''.
(4) Section 127 is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(h) Maine and New Hampshire.--With respect to Interstate
Route 95 in the State of New Hampshire, State laws or
regulations in effect on January 1, 1987, shall be applicable
for purposes of this section. With respect to that portion of
the Maine Turnpike designated Interstate Route 95 and 495,
and that portion of Interstate Route 95 from the southern
terminus of the Maine Turnpike to the New Hampshire State
line, State laws or regulations in effect on October 1, 1995,
shall be applicable for purposes of this section.''.
(j) Specialized Hauling Vehicles.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to examine
the impact of the truck weight standards on specialized
hauling vehicles.
(2) 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 with any
recommendations the Secretary determines appropriate as a
result of the study.
SEC. 135. ACCESS OF MOTORCYCLES.
Section 102 is amended by redesignating subsection (b) as
subsection (c) and by inserting after subsection (a) the
following:
``(b) Access of Motorcycles.--No State or political
subdivision of a State may restrict the access of motorcycles
to any highway or portion of a highway for which Federal-aid
highway funds have been utilized for planning, design,
construction, or maintenance.''.
SEC. 136. AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORIZATION LAWS.
(a) ISTEA High Priority Corridors.--
(1) In general.--Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032-2033)
is amended--
(A) in paragraph (5)(B)(iii)(I)(ff) by inserting before the
semicolon ``, including a connection to Andrews following the
Route 41 Corridor'';
(B) in paragraph (9) by inserting after ``New York'' the
following: ``, including United States Route 322 between
United States Route 220 and I-80'';
(C) in paragraph (18)--
(i) by inserting before ``Indianapolis, Indiana'' the
following: ``Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, through Port Huron,
Michigan, southwesterly along I-69 and from Windsor, Ontario,
Canada, through Detroit, Michigan, westerly along I-94 via
Marshall, Michigan, thence south to''; and
(ii) by striking ``and to include'' and inserting the
following:
``as follows:
``(A) In Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana,
the Corridor shall--
``(i) follow the alignment generally identified in the
Corridor 18 Special Issues Study Final Report; and
``(ii) run in an East/South direction to United States
Route 61 and cross the Mississippi River (in the vicinity of
Memphis, Tennessee) to Highway 79, and then follow Highway 79
south to 2 miles west of Altimer, Arkansas, and across the
Arkansas River at Lock and Dam Number 4, Arkansas, and then
proceed south in the direction of Monticello, Arkansas, and
link up with the
[[Page H1954]]
route proposed in the Corridor 18 Special Issues Study Final
Report which would continue to Haynesville, Louisiana.
``(B) In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall--
``(i) include United States Route 77 from the Rio Grande
River to Interstate Route 37 at Corpus Christi, Texas, and
then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 77;
``(ii) include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande
River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via
United States Route 59; and
``(iii) include'';
(D) in paragraph (21) by striking ``United States Route 17
in the vicinity of Salamanca, New York'' and inserting
``Interstate Route 80'';
(E) by inserting ``, including I-29 between Kansas City and
the Canadian border'' before the period at the end of
paragraph (23); and
(F) by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:
``(30) Interstate Route 5 in the States of California,
Oregon, and Washington, including California State Route 905
between Interstate Route 5 and the Otay Mesa Port of Entry.
``(31) The Mon-Fayette Expressway and Southern Beltway in
Pennsylvania.
``(32) The Wisconsin Development Corridor from the Iowa,
Illinois, and Wisconsin border near Dubuque, Iowa, to the
Upper Mississippi River Basin near Eau Claire, Wisconsin, as
follows:
``(A) United States Route 151 from the Iowa border to Fond
du Lac via Madison, Wisconsin, then United States Route 41
from Fond du Lac to Marinette via Oshkosh, Appleton, and
Green Bay, Wisconsin.
``(B) State Route 29 from Green Bay to I-94 via Wausau,
Chippewa Falls, and Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
``(C) United States Route 10 from Appleton to Marshfield,
Wisconsin.
``(33) The Capital Gateway Corridor following United States
Route 50 from the proposed intermodal transportation center
connected to I-395 in Washington, D.C., to the intersection
of United States Route 50 with Kenilworth Avenue and the
Baltimore-Washington Parkway in Maryland.
``(34) The Alameda Corridor East generally described as
52.8 miles from east Los Angeles (terminus of Alameda
Corridor) through the San Gabriel Valley terminating at
Colton Junction in San Bernandino.
``(35) Everett-Tacoma FAST Corridor.
``(36) New York and Pennsylvania State Route 17 from
Harriman, New York, to its intersection with I-90 in
Pennsylvania.
``(37) United States Route 90 from I-49 in Lafayette,
Louisiana, to I-10 in New Orleans.
``(38) The Ports-to-Plains Corridor from the Mexican Border
via I-27 to Denver, Colorado.
``(39) United States Route 63 from Marked Tree, Arkansas,
to I-55.''.
(2) Provisions applicable to corridors.--Section
1105(e)(5)(A) of such Act is amended--
(A) by inserting after ``referred to'' the first place it
appears the following: ``in subsection (c)(1),'';
(B) by striking ``and'' the second place it appears; and
(C) by inserting after ``(c)(20)'' the following: ``, in
subsection (c)(36), and in subsection (c)(37)''.
(3) Routes.--Section 1105(e)(5) of such Act is further
amended--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as
subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively;
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) Routes.--
``(i) Designation.--The routes referred to in subsections
(c)(18) and (c)(20) shall be designated as Interstate Route
I-69. A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes
referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect
signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the
criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and
(e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including segments of
United States Route 59 in the State of Texas. The segment
identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as
Interstate Route I-69 East, and the segment identified in
subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate
Route I-69 Central. The State of Texas shall erect signs
identifying such routes as segments of future Interstate
Route I-69.
``(ii) Rulemaking to determine future interstate sign
erection criteria.--The Secretary shall conduct a rulemaking
to determine the appropriate criteria for the erection of
signs for future routes on the Interstate System identified
in subparagraph (A). Such rulemaking shall be undertaken in
consultation with States and local officials and shall be
completed not later than December 31, 1998.'';
(C) by striking the last sentence of subparagraph (A) and
inserting it as the first sentence of subparagraph (B)(i), as
inserted by subparagraph (B) of this paragraph; and
(D) in subparagraph (D), as redesignated by subparagraph
(A) of this paragraph, by striking ``(C)'' and inserting
``(D)''.
(b) Amendments to Surface Transportation Assistance Act of
1982.--Section 146 of the Surface Transportation Assistance
Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2130), relating to lane restrictions,
is repealed.
SEC. 137. BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION AND PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS.
(a) In General.--Section 217 is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by inserting ``pedestrian walkways and'' after
``construction of''; and
(B) by striking ``(other than the Interstate System)'';
(2) in subsection (e) by striking ``, other than a highway
access to which is fully controlled,'';
(3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
``(g) Planning and Design.--Bicyclists and pedestrians
shall be given due consideration in the comprehensive
transportation plans developed by each metropolitan planning
organization and State in accordance with sections 134 and
135, respectively. Bicycle transportation facilities and
pedestrian walkways shall be considered, where appropriate,
in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction
of transportation facilities, except where bicycle and
pedestrian use are not permitted. Transportation plans and
projects shall provide due consideration for safety and
contiguous routes. Safety considerations shall include the
installation and maintenance of audible traffic signals and
audible signs at street crossings.'';
(4) in subsection (h) by striking ``No motorized vehicles
shall'' and inserting ``Motorized vehicles may not'';
(5) in subsection (h)(3) by striking ``when State and local
regulations permit,'';
(6) in subsection (h)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) when State or local regulations permit, electric
bicycles; and''; and
(7) by striking subsections (i) and (j) and inserting the
following:
``(i) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Bicycle transportation facility.--The term `bicycle
transportation facility' means new or improved lanes, paths,
or shoulders for use by bicyclists, traffic control devices,
shelters, and parking facilities for bicycles.
``(2) Electric bicycle.--The term `electric bicycle' means
any bicycle or tricycle with a low-powered electric motor
weighing under 100 pounds, with a top motor-powered speed not
in excess of 20 miles per hour.
``(3) Pedestrian.--The term `pedestrian' means any person
traveling by foot and any mobility impaired person using a
wheelchair.
``(4) Wheelchair.--The term `wheelchair' means a mobility
aid, usable indoors, and designed for and used by individuals
with mobility impairments, whether operated manually or
powered.''.
(b) Protection of Nonmotorized Transportation Traffic.--
Section 109(n) is amended to read as follows:
``(n) Protection of Nonmotorized Transportation Traffic.--
The Secretary shall not approve any project or take any
regulatory action under this title that will result in the
severance of an existing major route or have significant
adverse impact on the safety for nonmotorized transportation
traffic and light motorcycles, unless such project or
regulatory action provides for a reasonably alternate route
or such a route exits.''.
(c) Railway-Highway Crossings.--Section 130 is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(j) Bicycle Safety.--In carrying out projects under this
section, a State shall take into account bicycle safety.''.
(d) Highway and Street Design Standards.--
(1) Study.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall initiate, in
conjunction with the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, a study to consider proposals
to amend the policies of such association relating to highway
and street design standards to accommodate bicyclists and
pedestrians.
(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after such date of
enactment, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report
on the results of the study with any recommendations on
amending the policies referred to in paragraph (1) the
Secretary determines appropriate.
(e) National Bicycle Safety Education Curricula.--
(1) Development.--The Secretary is authorized to develop a
national bicycle safety education curricula that may include
courses relating to on-road training.
(2) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to
Congress a copy of the curricula.
(3) Funding.--From amounts made available under section 210
of this Act, the Secretary may use not to exceed $500,000 for
fiscal year 1998 to carry out this subsection.
(f) Design Guidance.--In implementing section 217(g) of
title 23, United States Code, the Secretary, in cooperation
with the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, and other interested organizations, shall develop
guidance on the various approaches to accommodating bicycles
and pedestrian travel. The guidance shall address issues such
as the level and nature of the demand, volume, and speed of
motor vehicle traffic, safety, terrain, cost, and sight
distance. The guidance shall be developed within 1 year after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 138. HAZARD ELIMINATION PROGRAM.
Section 152 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by inserting ``, bicyclists,'' after
``motorists'';
(2) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following:
``In carrying out this section, States shall minimize any
negative impact on safety and access for bicyclists and
pedestrians.'';
(3) in subsection (b) by inserting after ``project'' the
following: ``or safety improvement project described in
subsection (a)''; and
(4) in subsections (f) and (g) by striking ``highway'' each
place it appears.
SEC. 139. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Life Cycle Cost Analysis.--Section 106(e) is amended--
[[Page H1955]]
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``with a cost of
$25,000,000 or more'';
(2) by adding at the end of paragraph (1) the following:
``The program shall be based on the principles contained in
section 2 of Executive Order 12893.''; and
(3) in paragraph (2) by inserting after ``maintenance,''
the following: ``user costs,''.
(b) Evaluation of Procurement Practices and Project
Delivery.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study
to assess the impact that a utility company's failure to
relocate their facilities in a timely manner has on the
delivery and cost of Federal-aid highway and bridge projects.
The study shall also assess the following:
(A) Methods States use to mitigate such delays, including
the use of the courts to compel utility cooperation.
(B) The prevalence and use of incentives to utility
companies for early completion of utility relocations on
Federal-aid transportation project sites and, conversely,
penalties assessed on utility companies for utility
relocation delays on such projects.
(C) The extent to which States have used available
technologies, such as subsurface utility engineering, early
in the design of Federal-aid highway and bridge projects so
as to eliminate or reduce the need for or delays due to
utility relocations.
(D) Whether individual States compensate transportation
contractors for business costs they incur when Federal-aid
highway and bridge projects under contract to them are
delayed by utility company caused delays in utility
relocations and any methods used by States in making any such
compensation.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall transmit
to Congress a report on the results of the study with any
recommendations the Comptroller General determines
appropriate as a result of the study.
SEC. 140. CONTRACTING FOR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES.
Section 112(b)(2) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B)(i) by striking ``, except to'' and
all that follows through ``services'';
(2) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) Selection, performance, and audits.--
``(i) In general.--All requirements for architectural,
engineering, and related services at any phase of a highway
project funded in whole or in part with Federal-aid highway
funds shall be performed under a contract awarded in
accordance with subparagraph (A) unless the simplified
acquisition procedures of the Federal Acquisition Regulations
of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, apply.
``(ii) Prohibition on state restrictions.--A State shall
not impose any overhead restriction, or salary limitation
inconsistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulations, that
would preclude any qualified firm from being eligible to
compete for contracts awarded in accordance with subparagraph
(A).
``(iii) Compliance with federal acquisition regulations.--
The process for selection, award, performance,
administration, and audit of the resulting contracts shall
comply with the procedures, cost principles, and cost
accounting principles of the Federal Acquisition Regulations,
including parts 30, 31, and 36 of title 48, Code of Federal
Regulations.'';
(3) in subparagraph (G)--
(A) by inserting ``(i) General rule.--'' before
``Subpargraphs'';
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) State option.--Congress has determined that the
State opt-out period for the contract administration
procedures has expired. States that have complied with or
received waivers from the Secretary regarding the
requirements of section 307 of the National Highway
Designation Act of 1995, as of the date of the enactment of
this clause, shall not be subject to the requirements of
subparagraph (A).''; and
(C) by indenting clause (i), as designated by subparagraph
(A) of this paragraph, and aligning it with clause (ii), as
added by subparagraph (B) of this paragraph; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(H) Compliance.--A State shall comply, with respect to
any architecture, engineering, or related service contract
for any phase of a Federal-aid highway project, with the
qualifications-based selection procedures of the Federal
Acquisition Regulations, and with the single audit procedures
required under this paragraph, or with an existing State law
or a statute enacted in accordance with the legislative
session exemption provided by subparagraph (G).''.
SEC. 141. COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE STUDY.
(a) Study.--The Secretary shall request the Transportation
Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct
a study regarding the regulation of weights, lengths, and
widths of commercial motor vehicles operating on Federal-aid
highways to which Federal regulations currently apply. In
conducting the study, the Board shall review current law,
regulations, studies (including Transportation Research Board
Special Report 225), and practices and develop
recommendations regarding any revisions to current law and
regulations that the Board deems appropriate.
(b) Factors To Consider and Evaluate.--In developing
recommendations under subsection (a), the Board shall
consider and evaluate the impact of the recommendations
described in subsection (a) on the economy, the environment,
safety, and service to communities.
(c) Consultation.--In carrying out the study, the Board
shall consult the Department of Transportation, States, the
motor carrier industry, freight shippers, highway safety
groups, air quality and natural resource management groups,
commercial motor vehicle driver representatives, and other
appropriate entities.
(d) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Board shall transmit to Congress
and the Secretary a report on the results of the study
conducted under this section.
(e) Recommendations.--Not later than 6 months after the
date of receipt of the report under subsection (d), the
Secretary may transmit to Congress a report containing
comments or recommendations of the Secretary regarding the
report.
(f) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated out of
the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account)
$250,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to carry out
this subsection.
(g) Applicability of Title 23.--Funds made available to
carry out this section shall be available for obligation in
the same manner as if such funds were apportioned under
chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; except that the
Federal share of the cost of the study under this section
shall be 100 percent and such funds shall remain available
until expended.
SEC. 142. NEW YORK AVENUE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY.
(a) Establishment.--There is established an authority to be
known as the New York Avenue Transportation Development
Authority (hereinafter in this section referred to as
``Authority'').
(b) Membership.--The Authority shall be composed of 5
members appointed as follows:
(1) 3 individuals appointed by the President.
(2) 2 individuals appointed by the mayor of the District of
Columbia.
(c) Compensation.--Members of the Authority may not receive
pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of their service on
the Authority.
(d) Duties.--The Authority shall develop a transportation
improvement plan for the Capital Gateway Corridor and
vicinity following United States Route 50 from I-395 in
Washington, D.C., to the intersection of United States Route
50 with Kenilworth Avenue and the Baltimore-Washington
Parkway in Maryland, which shall include--
(1) engineering, pre-design, and design necessary to
improve the corridor; and
(2) economic feasibility studies of financing the project,
including the feasibility of repaying funds that may be
borrowed from the Highway Trust Fund to carry out the
project.
(e) Considerations for TIP.--In developing the
transportation improvement plan, the Authority shall
consider--
(1) how a tunnel or other method to re-route interstate
traffic from the surface of New York Avenue may improve
traffic on and access to the New York Avenue Corridor; and
(2) how to improve access to the National Arboretum.
(f) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Authority shall report to the
Congress on any additional legal authorities it needs to
carry out the transportation improvement plan.
(g) Funding.--The Authority is eligible to receive funds
authorized under the National Corridor Planning and
Development program established in section 115.
SEC. 143. DEFINITIONS.
Section 101(a) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Definitions.--The following definitions apply:
``(1) Apportionment.--The term `apportionment' includes
unexpended apportionments made under prior authorization
laws.
``(2) Carpool project.--The term `carpool project' means
any project to encourage the use of carpools and vanpools,
including provision of carpooling opportunities to the
elderly and handicapped, systems for locating potential
riders and informing them of carpool opportunities, acquiring
vehicles for carpool use, designating existing highway lanes
as preferential carpool highway lanes, providing related
traffic control devices, and designating existing facilities
for use for preferential parking for carpools.
``(3) Construction.--The term `construction' means the
supervising, inspecting, actual building, and all expenses
incidental to the construction or reconstruction of a
highway, including bond costs and other costs relating to the
issuance in accordance with section 122 of bonds or other
debt financing instruments and costs incurred by the State in
performing Federal-aid project related audits which directly
benefit the Federal-aid highway program. Such term includes--
``(A) locating, surveying, and mapping (including the
establishment of temporary and permanent geodetic markers in
accordance with specifications of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration in the Department of Commerce);
``(B) resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation;
``(C) acquisition of rights-of-way;
``(D) relocation assistance, acquisition of replacement
housing sites, and acquisition and rehabilitation,
relocation, and construction of replacement housing;
``(E) elimination of hazards of railway grade crossings;
``(F) elimination of roadside obstacles;
``(G) improvements which directly facilitate and control
traffic flow, such as grade separation of intersections,
widening of lanes, channelization of traffic, traffic control
systems, and passenger loading and unloading areas; and
``(H) capital improvements which directly facilitate an
effective vehicle weight enforcement program, such as scales
(fixed and portable), scale pits, scale installation, and
scale houses.
``(4) County.--The term `county' includes corresponding
units of government under any other name in States which do
not have county organizations and, in those States in which
the county government does not have jurisdiction
[[Page H1956]]
over highways, any local government unit vested with
jurisdiction over local highways.
``(5) Federal-aid highways.--The term `Federal-aid
highways' means highways eligible for assistance under this
chapter other than highways classified as local roads or
rural minor collectors.
``(6) Federal-aid system.--The term `Federal-aid system'
means any one of the Federal-aid highway systems described in
section 103.
``(7) Federal lands highways.--The term `Federal lands
highways' means forest highways, public lands highways, park
roads, parkways, and Indian reservation roads which are
public roads.
``(8) Forest development roads and trails.--The term
`forest development roads and trails' means a forest road or
trail under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service.
``(9) Forest highway.--The term `forest highway' means a
forest road under the jurisdiction of, and maintained by, a
public authority and open to public travel.
``(10) Forest road or trail.--The term `forest road or
trail' means a road or trail wholly or partly within, or
adjacent to, and serving the National Forest System and which
is necessary for the protection, administration, and
utilization of the National Forest System and the use and
development of its resources.
``(11) Highway.--The term `highway' includes roads,
streets, and parkways, and also includes rights-of-way,
bridges, railroad-highway crossings, tunnels, drainage
structures, signs, guardrails, and protective structures, in
connection with highways. It further includes that portion of
any interstate or international bridge or tunnel and the
approaches thereto, the cost of which is assumed by a State
highway department, including such facilities as may be
required by the United States Customs and Immigration
Services in connection with the operation of an international
bridge or tunnel.
``(12) Highway safety improvement project.--The term
`highway safety improvement project' means a project which
corrects or improves high hazard locations, eliminates
roadside obstacles, improves highway signing and pavement
marking, installs priority control systems for emergency
vehicles at signalized intersections, installs or replaces
emergency motorist aid call boxes, or installs traffic
control or warning devices at high accident potential
locations.
``(13) Indian reservation roads.--The term `Indian
reservation roads' means public roads that are located within
or provide access to an Indian reservation or Indian trust
land or restricted Indian land which is not subject to fee
title alienation without the approval of the Federal
Government, or Indian and Alaska Native villages, groups, or
communities in which Indians and Alaskan Natives reside, whom
the Secretary of the Interior has determined are eligible for
services generally available to Indians under Federal laws
specifically applicable to Indians.
``(14) Interstate system.--The term `Interstate System'
means the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate
and Defense Highways described in section 103(e).
``(15) Maintenance.--The term `maintenance' means the
preservation of the entire highway, including surface,
shoulders, roadsides, structures, and such traffic-control
devices as are necessary for its safe and efficient
utilization.
``(16) National highway system.--The term `National Highway
System' means the Federal-aid highway system described in
section 103(b).
``(17) Operating costs for traffic monitoring, management,
and control.--The term `operating costs for traffic
monitoring, management, and control' includes labor costs,
administrative costs, costs of utilities and rent, and other
costs associated with the continuous operation of traffic
control, such as integrated traffic control systems, incident
management programs, and traffic control centers.
``(18) Operational improvement.--The term `operational
improvement' means a capital improvement for installation of
traffic surveillance and control equipment, computerized
signal systems, motorist information systems, integrated
traffic control systems, incident management programs, and
transportation demand management facilities, strategies, and
programs and such other capital improvements to public roads
as the Secretary may designate, by regulation; except that
such term does not include resurfacing, restoring, or
rehabilitating improvements, construction of additional
lanes, interchanges, and grade separations, and construction
of a new facility on a new location.
``(19) Park road.--The term `park road' means a public
road, including a bridge built primarily for pedestrian use,
but with capacity for use by emergency vehicles, that is
located within, or provides access to, an area in the
National Park System with title and maintenance
responsibilities vested in the United States.
``(20) Parkway.--The term `parkway', as used in chapter 2
of this title, means a parkway authorized by Act of Congress
on lands to which title is vested in the United States.
``(21) Project.--The term `project' means an undertaking to
construct a particular portion of a highway, or if the
context so implies, the particular portion of a highway so
constructed or any other undertaking eligible for assistance
under this title.
``(22) Project agreement.--The term `project agreement'
means the formal instrument to be executed by the State
highway department and the Secretary as required by section
110(a).
``(23) Public authority.--The term `public authority' means
a Federal, State, county, town, or township, Indian tribe,
municipal or other local government or instrumentality with
authority to finance, build, operate, or maintain toll or
toll-free facilities.
``(24) Public lands development roads and trails.--The term
`public lands development roads and trails' means those roads
or trails which the Secretary of the Interior determines are
of primary importance for the development, protection,
administration, and utilization of public lands and resources
under his control.
``(25) Public lands highway.--The term `public lands
highway' means any highway through unappropriated or
unreserved public lands, nontaxable Indian lands, or other
Federal reservations under the jurisdiction of and maintained
by a public authority and open to public travel.
``(26) Public road.--The term `public road' means any road
or street under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a
public authority and open to public travel.
``(27) Rural areas.--The term `rural areas' means all areas
of a State not included in urban areas.
``(28) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means Secretary of
Transportation.
``(29) State.--The term `State' means any one of the fifty
States, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico.
``(30) State funds.--The term `State funds' includes funds
raised under the authority of the State or any political or
other subdivision thereof, and made available for expenditure
under the direct control of the State highway department.
``(31) State highway department.--The term `State highway
department' means that department, commission, board, or
official of any State charged by its laws with the
responsibility for highway construction.
``(32) Transportation enhancement activities.--The term
`transportation enhancement activities' means, with respect
to any project or the area to be served by the project, any
of the following activities if such activity has a direct
link to surface transportation: provision of facilities for
pedestrians and bicycles, provision of safety and educational
activities for pedestrians and bicyclists, acquisition of
scenic easements and scenic or historic sites, scenic or
historic highway programs, landscaping and other scenic
beautification, including removal of graffiti and litter to
the extent that such removal is in excess of fiscal year 1997
maintenance levels for removal of graffiti and litter,
historic preservation, rehabilitation and operation of
historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities
(including historic railroad facilities and canals),
preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the
conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails),
control and removal of outdoor advertising, archaeological
planning and research, environmental mitigation to address
water pollution due to highway runoff or reduce vehicle-
caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat
connectivity, and provision of tourist and welcome centers.
``(33) Urban area.--The term `urban area' means an
urbanized area or, in the case of an urbanized area
encompassing more than one State, that part of the urbanized
area in each such State, or urban place as designated by the
Bureau of the Census having a population of 5,000 or more and
not within any urbanized area, within boundaries to be fixed
by responsible State and local officials in cooperation with
each other, subject to approval by the Secretary. Such
boundaries shall, as a minimum, encompass the entire urban
place designated by the Bureau of the Census, except in the
case of cities in the State of Maine and in the State of New
Hampshire.
``(34) Urbanized area.--The term `urbanized area' means an
area with a population of 50,000 or more designated by the
Bureau of the Census, within boundaries to be fixed by
responsible State and local officials in cooperation with
each other, subject to approval by the Secretary. Boundaries
shall, at a minimum, encompass the entire urbanized area
within a State as designated by the Bureau of the Census.''.
TITLE II--HIGHWAY SAFETY
SEC. 201. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 23, UNITED STATES CODE.
Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this
title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision of
law, the reference shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of title 23, United States Code.
SEC. 202. HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS.
(a) Uniform Guidelines.--Section 402(a) is amended--
(1) in the fourth sentence by striking ``(4)'' and
inserting ``(4) to prevent accidents and''; and
(2) in the eighth sentence by striking ``include
information obtained by the Secretary under section 4007 of
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
and''.
(b) Administration of State Programs.--Section 402(b) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(b)(1)'' and all that follows through
paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(b) Administration of State Programs.--'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively;
(3) in paragraph (1)(C), as so redesignated, by striking
``paragraph (5)'' and inserting ``paragraph (3)''; and
(4) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated, by striking
``paragraph (3)(C)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)(C)''.
(c) Apportionment of Funds.--The 6th sentence of section
402(c) is amended by inserting ``the apportionment to the
Secretary of the Interior shall not be less than three-
fourths of 1 percent of the total apportionment and'' after
``except that''.
(d) Application in Indian Country.--Section 402(i) is
amended to read as follows:
``(i) Application in Indian Country.--
``(1) In general.--For the purpose of application of this
section in Indian country, the terms `State' and `Governor of
a State' include the
[[Page H1957]]
Secretary of the Interior and the term `political subdivision
of a State' includes an Indian tribe. Notwithstanding
subsection (b)(1)(C), 95 percent of the funds apportioned to
the Secretary of the Interior under this section shall be
expended by Indian tribes to carry out highway safety
programs within their jurisdictions. The requirements of
subsection (b)(1)(D) shall be applicable to Indian tribes,
except to those tribes with respect to which the Secretary of
Transportation determines that application of such provisions
would not be practicable.
``(2) Indian country defined.--In this subsection, the term
`Indian country' means--
``(A) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation
under the jurisdiction of the United States, notwithstanding
the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way
running through the reservation;
``(B) all dependent Indian communities within the borders
of the United States, whether within the original or
subsequently acquired territory thereof and whether within or
without the limits of a State; and
``(C) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which
have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running
through such allotments.''.
(e) Rulemaking Proceeding.--Section 402(j) is amended to
read as follows:
``(j) Rulemaking Proceeding.--The Secretary may from time
to time conduct a rulemaking process to identify highway
safety programs that are highly effective in reducing motor
vehicle crashes, injuries, and deaths. Any such rulemaking
shall take into account the major role of the States in
implementing such programs. When a rule promulgated in
accordance with this section takes effect, States shall
consider these highly effective programs when developing
their highway safety programs.''.
SEC. 203. HIGHWAY SAFETY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
Section 403(a)(2)(A) is amended by inserting ``, including
training in work zone safety management'' after
``personnel''.
SEC. 204. OCCUPANT PROTECTION INCENTIVE GRANTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 4 is amended by inserting after
section 404 the following:
``Sec. 405. Occupant protection incentive grants
``(a) General Authority.--
``(1) Authority to make grants.--Subject to the provisions
of this section, the Secretary shall make grants under
subsections (b) and (c) to States that adopt and implement
effective programs to reduce highway deaths and injuries
resulting from individuals riding unrestrained or improperly
restrained in motor vehicles. Such grants may be used by
recipient States only to implement and enforce, as
appropriate, such programs.
``(2) Maintenance of effort.--No grant may be made to a
State under subsection (b) or (c) in any fiscal year unless
the State enters into such agreements with the Secretary as
the Secretary may require to ensure that the State will
maintain its aggregate expenditures from all other sources
for programs described in paragraph (1) at or above the
average level of such expenditures in its 2 fiscal years
preceding the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and
Equity Act of 1998.
``(3) Maximum period of eligibility; federal share for
grants.--No State may receive grants under subsection (b) or
(c) in more than 6 fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1997. The Federal share payable for any grant under this
section shall not exceed--
``(A) in the first and second fiscal years in which the
State receives the grant, 75 percent of the cost of
implementing and enforcing, as appropriate, in such fiscal
year a program adopted by the State;
``(B) in the third and fourth fiscal years in which the
State receives the grant, 50 percent of the cost of
implementing and enforcing, as appropriate, in such fiscal
year such program; and
``(C) in the fifth and sixth fiscal years in which the
State receives the grant, 25 percent of the cost of
implementing and enforcing, as appropriate, in such fiscal
year such program.
``(b) Grant A.--A State may establish its eligibility for a
grant under this subsection by adopting or demonstrating to
the satisfaction of the Secretary at least 5 of the following
and, beginning in fiscal year 2001, at least 6 of the
following:
``(1) Safety belt use law.--The State has in effect a
safety belt use law that makes unlawful throughout the State
the operation of a passenger motor vehicle whenever an
individual (other than a child who is secured in a child
restraint system) in the front seat of the vehicle (and,
beginning in fiscal year 2000, in any seat in the vehicle)
does not have a safety belt properly secured about the
individual's body.
``(2) Primary safety belt use law.--The State provides for
primary enforcement of its safety belt use law.
``(3) Minimum fine or penalty points.--The State imposes a
minimum fine, or provides for the imposition of penalty
points against an individual's driver's license, for a
violation of its safety belt use law.
``(4) Child safety seat law.--The State has in effect a
child passenger protection law that makes unlawful throughout
the State the operation of a passenger motor vehicle whenever
a child up to 4 years of age in the vehicle is not properly
secured in a child safety seat.
``(5) Special traffic enforcement program.--The State has
implemented a statewide special traffic enforcement program
for occupant protection that emphasizes publicity for the
program.
``(6) Child occupant protection education program.--The
State has implemented a statewide comprehensive child
occupant protection education program that includes education
about proper seating positions for children in air bag
equipped motor vehicles and instruction on how to reduce the
improper use of child restraints systems.
``(7) Child passenger protection law.--The State has in
effect a child passenger protection law that makes unlawful
throughout the State the operation of a passenger motor
vehicle whenever a child up to 10 years of age (and,
beginning in fiscal year 2003, a child up to 16 years of age)
in the vehicle is not properly restrained.
``(c) Grant B.--A State may establish its eligibility for a
grant under this subsection by adopting or demonstrating to
the satisfaction of the Secretary each of the following:
``(1) State safety belt use rate.--The State demonstrates a
statewide safety belt use rate in both front outboard seating
positions in all passenger motor vehicles of 80 percent or
higher in each of the years a grant under this subparagraph
is received.
``(2) Survey method.--The State follows safety belt use
survey methods which conform to guidelines issued by the
Secretary ensuring that such measurements are accurate and
representative.
``(d) Grant Amounts.--The amount of each grant for which a
State qualifies under subsection (b) or (c) for a fiscal year
shall equal up to 30 percent of the amount apportioned to the
State for fiscal year 1997 under section 402 of this title.
``(e) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Child safety seat.--The term `child safety seat'
means any device (except safety belts) designed for use in a
motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position a child who
weighs 50 pounds or less.
``(2) Motor vehicle.--The term `motor vehicle' means a
vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured
primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but
does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.
``(3) Multipurpose passenger vehicle.--The term
`multipurpose passenger vehicle' means a motor vehicle with
motive power (except a trailer), designed to carry not more
than 10 individuals, that is constructed either on a truck
chassis or with special features for occasional off-road
operation.
``(4) Passenger car.--The term `passenger car' means a
motor vehicle with motive power (except a multipurpose
passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer) designed to carry
not more than 10 individuals.
``(5) Passenger motor vehicle.--The term `passenger motor
vehicle' means a passenger car or a multipurpose passenger
motor vehicle.
``(6) Safety belt.--The term `safety belt' means--
``(A) with respect to open-body passenger vehicles,
including convertibles, an occupant restraint system
consisting of a lap belt or a lap belt and a detachable
shoulder belt; and
``(B) with respect to other passenger vehicles, an occupant
restraint system consisting of integrated lap and shoulder
belts.
``(f) Administrative Expenses.--Funds authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section shall be subject to a
deduction not to exceed 5 percent for the necessary costs of
administering the provisions of this section.
``(g) Applicability of Chapter 1.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, all provisions of chapter 1 of this title that
are applicable to National Highway System funds, other than
provisions relating to the apportionment formula and
provisions limiting the expenditure of such funds to Federal-
aid highways, shall apply to the funds authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section.
``(2) Inconsistent provisions.--If the Secretary determines
that a provision of chapter 1 of this title is inconsistent
with this section, such provision shall not apply to funds
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section.
``(3) Credit for state and local expenditures.--The
aggregate of all expenditures made during any fiscal year by
a State and its political subdivisions (exclusive of Federal
funds) for carrying out the State highway safety program
under section 402 (other than planning and administration)
shall be available for the purpose of crediting such State
during such fiscal year for the non-Federal share of the cost
of any project under this section (other than one for
planning or administration) without regard to whether such
expenditures were actually made in connection with such
project.
``(4) Increased federal share for certain indian tribe
programs.--In the case of an occupant protection program
carried out by an Indian tribe, if the Secretary is satisfied
that an Indian tribe does not have sufficient funds available
to meet the non-Federal share of the cost of such program,
the Secretary may increase the Federal share of the cost
thereof payable under this title to the extent necessary.
``(5) Treatment of term `state highway department'.--In
applying provisions of chapter 1 in carrying out this
section, the term `State highway department' as used in such
provisions shall mean the Governor of a State and, in the
case of an Indian tribe program, the Secretary of the
Interior.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for such
chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 404 the following:
``405. Occupant protection incentive grants.''.
SEC. 205. ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING COUNTERMEASURES.
Section 410 is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 410. Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures
``(a) General Authority.--Subject to the requirements of
this section, the Secretary shall make grants to States that
adopt and implement effective programs to reduce traffic
safety problems resulting from individuals driving while
[[Page H1958]]
under the influence of alcohol. Such grants may only be used
by recipient States to implement and enforce such programs.
``(b) Maintenance of Effort.--No grant may be made to a
State under this section in any fiscal year unless the State
enters into such agreements with the Secretary as the
Secretary may require to ensure that the State will maintain
its aggregate expenditures from all other sources for alcohol
traffic safety programs at or above the average level of such
expenditures in its 2 fiscal years preceding the date of the
enactment of the Building Efficient Surface Transportation
and Equity Act of 1998.
``(c) Maximum Period of Eligibility; Federal Share for
Grants.--No State may receive grants under this section in
more than 6 fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1997.
The Federal share payable for any grant under this section
shall not exceed--
``(1) in the first and second fiscal years in which the
State receives a grant under this section, 75 percent of the
cost of implementing and enforcing in such fiscal year a
program adopted by the State pursuant to subsection (a);
``(2) in the third and fourth fiscal years in which the
State receives a grant under this section, 50 percent of the
cost of implementing and enforcing in such fiscal year such
program; and
``(3) in the fifth and sixth fiscal years in which the
State receives a grant under this section, 25 percent of the
cost of implementing and enforcing in such fiscal year such
program.
``(d) Basic Grant Eligibility.--
``(1) Basic grant a.--A State shall become eligible for a
grant under this paragraph by adopting or demonstrating to
the satisfaction of the Secretary at least 5 of the
following:
``(A) .08 bac per se law.--A law that provides that any
individual with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent
or greater while operating a motor vehicle shall be deemed to
be driving while intoxicated.
``(B) Administrative license revocation.--An administrative
driver's license suspension or revocation system for
individuals who operate motor vehicles while under the
influence of alcohol that requires that--
``(i) in the case of an individual who, in any 5-year
period beginning after the date of the enactment of the
Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of
1998, is determined on the basis of a chemical test to have
been operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol
or is determined to have refused to submit to such a test as
proposed by a law enforcement officer, the State agency
responsible for administering drivers' licenses, upon receipt
of the report of the law enforcement officer--
``(I) shall suspend the driver's license of such individual
for a period of not less than 90 days if such individual is a
first offender in such 5-year period; and
``(II) shall suspend the driver's license of such
individual for a period of not less than 1 year, or revoke
such license, if such individual is a repeat offender in such
5-year period; and
``(ii) the suspension and revocation referred to under
clause (i) shall take effect not later than 30 days after the
day on which the individual refused to submit to a chemical
test or received notice of having been determined to be
driving under the influence of alcohol, in accordance with
the State's procedures.
``(C) Underage drinking program.--An effective system, as
determined by the Secretary, for preventing operators of
motor vehicles under age 21 from obtaining alcoholic
beverages and for preventing persons from making
alcoholic beverages available to individuals under age 21.
Such system may include a graduated licensing system, the
issuance of drivers' licenses to individuals under age 21
that are easily distinguishable in appearance from
drivers' licenses issued to individuals age 21 years of
age or older, and the issuance of drivers' licenses that
are tamper resistant.
``(D) Enforcement program.--Either--
``(i) a statewide program for stopping motor vehicles on a
nondiscriminatory, lawful basis for the purpose of
determining whether the operators of such motor vehicles are
driving while under the influence of alcohol; or
``(ii) a statewide special traffic enforcement program for
impaired driving that emphasizes publicity for the program.
``(E) Repeat offenders.--Effective sanctions for repeat
offenders convicted of driving under the influence of
alcohol. Such sanctions, as determined by the Secretary, may
include electronic monitoring; alcohol interlocks; intensive
supervision of probation; vehicle impoundment, confiscation,
or forfeiture; dedicated detention facilities; special
measures to reduce driving with a suspended license; and
assignment of treatment.
``(F) Drivers with high bac's.--Programs to target
individuals with high blood alcohol concentrations who
operate a motor vehicle. Such programs may include
implementation of a system of graduated penalties and
assessment of individuals convicted of driving under the
influence of alcohol.
``(G) Young adult drinking programs.--Programs to reduce
driving while under the influence of alcohol by individuals
age 21 through 34. Such programs may include awareness
campaigns; traffic safety partnerships with employers,
colleges, and the hospitality industry; assessment of first
time offenders; and incorporation of treatment into judicial
sentencing.
``(H) Testing for bac.--An effective system for increasing
the rate of testing for blood alcohol concentration of motor
vehicle drivers in fatal accidents and, in fiscal year 2000
and in each fiscal year thereafter, a rate of such testing
that is equal to or greater than the national average.
``(2) Basic grant b.--A State shall become eligible for a
grant under this paragraph by adopting or demonstrating to
the satisfaction of the Secretary each of the following:
``(A) Fatal impaired driver percentage reduction.--The
percentage of fatally injured drivers with 0.10 percent or
greater blood alcohol concentration in the State has
decreased in each of the 3 most recent calendar years for
which statistics for determining such percentages are
available.
``(B) Fatal impaired driver percentage comparison.--The
percentage of fatally injured drivers with 0.10 percent or
greater blood alcohol concentration in the State has been
lower than the average percentage for all States in each of
the calendar years referred to in subparagraph (A).
``(3) Basic grant amount.--The amount of a basic grant made
to a State for a fiscal year under this subsection shall
equal up to 30 percent of the amount apportioned to the State
for fiscal year 1997 under section 402 of this title.
``(e) Discretionary Grants.--
``(1) In general.--Upon receiving an application from a
State, the Secretary may make grants to the State for
carrying out innovative programs (other than the programs
specified in subsection (d)) to reduce traffic safety
problems resulting from individuals driving while under the
influence of alcohol or controlled substances. Such programs
may seek to achieve such a reduction through legal, judicial,
enforcement, educational, technological, or other approaches.
``(2) Eligibility.--A State shall be eligible to receive a
grant under this subsection in a fiscal year only if the
State is eligible to receive a grant under subsection (d) in
such fiscal year.
``(3) Funding.--Of the amounts made available to carry out
this section, not to exceed 12 percent shall be available for
making grants under this subsection.
``(f) Administrative Expenses.--Funds authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section shall be subject to a
deduction not to exceed 5 percent for the necessary costs of
administering the provisions of this section.
``(g) Applicability of Chapter 1.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, all provisions of chapter 1 of this title that
are applicable to National Highway System funds, other than
provisions relating to the apportionment formula and
provisions limiting the expenditure of such funds to Federal-
aid highways, shall apply to the funds authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section.
``(2) Inconsistent provisions.--If the Secretary determines
that a provision of chapter 1 of this title is inconsistent
with this section, such provision shall not apply to funds
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section.
``(3) Credit for state and local expenditures.--The
aggregate of all expenditures made during any fiscal year by
a State and its political subdivisions (exclusive of Federal
funds) for carrying out the State highway safety program
under section 402 (other than planning and administration)
shall be available for the purpose of crediting such State
during such fiscal year for the non-Federal share of the cost
of any project under this section (other than one for
planning or administration) without regard to whether such
expenditures were actually made in connection with such
project.
``(4) Increased federal share for certain indian tribe
programs.--In the case of an alcohol-impaired driving
countermeasures program carried out by an Indian tribe, if
the Secretary is satisfied that an Indian tribe does not have
sufficient funds available to meet the non-Federal share of
the cost of such program, the Secretary may increase the
Federal share of the cost thereof payable under this title to
the extent necessary.
``(5) Treatment of term `state highway department'.--In
applying provisions of chapter 1 in carrying out this
section, the term `State highway department' as used in such
provisions shall mean the Governor of a State and, in the
case of an Indian tribe program, the Secretary of the
Interior.
``(h) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Alcoholic beverage.--The term `alcoholic beverage'
has the meaning such term has under section 158(c) of this
title.
``(2) Controlled substances.--The term `controlled
substances' has the meaning such term has under section
102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)).
``(3) Motor vehicle.--The term `motor vehicle' means a
vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured
primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but
does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail
line.''.
SEC. 206. STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY DATA IMPROVEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 4 is further amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
``Sec. 411. State highway safety data improvements
``(a) General Authority.--Subject to the provisions of this
section, the Secretary shall make grants to States that adopt
and implement effective programs to--
``(1) improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness,
uniformity, and accessibility of the State's data needed to
identify priorities for national, State, and local highway
and traffic safety programs;
``(2) evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to make such
improvements;
``(3) link these State data systems, including traffic
records, together and with other data systems within the
State, such as systems that contain medical and economic
data; and
``(4) improve State data systems' compatibility with
national data systems and those of other States and enhance
the Secretary's ability to observe and analyze national
trends in crash occurrences, rates, outcomes, and causation.
[[Page H1959]]
Such grants may be used by recipient States only to implement
such programs.
``(b) Model Data Elements.--The Secretary, in consultation
with States and other appropriate parties, shall determine
the model data elements necessary to observe and analyze
national trends in crash occurrences, rates, outcomes, and
causation. A State's multiyear highway safety data and
traffic records plan described in subsection (e)(1) shall
demonstrate how the model data elements will be incorporated
into the State's data systems for the State to be eligible
for grants under this section.
``(c) Maintenance of Effort.--No grant may be made to a
State under this section in any fiscal year unless the State
enters into such agreements with the Secretary as the
Secretary may require to ensure that the State will maintain
its aggregate expenditures from all other sources for highway
safety data programs at or above the average level of such
expenditures in its 2 fiscal years preceding the date of the
enactment of the Building Efficient Surface Transportation
and Equity Act of 1998.
``(d) Maximum Period of Eligibility; Federal Share for
Grants.--No State may receive grants under this section in
more than 6 fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1997.
The Federal share payable for any grant under this section
shall not exceed--
``(1) in the first and second fiscal years in which the
State receives the grant, 75 percent of the cost of
implementing and enforcing, as appropriate, in such fiscal
year a program adopted by the State;
``(2) in the third and fourth fiscal years in which the
State receives the grant, 50 percent of the cost of
implementing and enforcing, as appropriate, in such fiscal
year such program; and
``(3) in the fifth and sixth fiscal years in which the
State receives the grant under this section, 25 percent of
the cost of implementing and enforcing, as appropriate, in
such fiscal year such program.
``(e) First-Year Grants.--
``(1) Eligibility.--A State shall be eligible for a first-
year grant under this section in a fiscal year if the State
either--
``(A) demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Secretary,
that the State has--
``(i) established a highway safety data and traffic records
coordinating committee with a multidisciplinary membership,
including the administrators, collectors, and users of such
data (including the public health, injury control, and motor
carrier communities);
``(ii) completed, within the preceding 5 years, a highway
safety data and traffic records assessment or an audit of the
State's highway safety data and traffic records system; and
``(iii) initiated the development of a multiyear highway
safety data and traffic records strategic plan, to be
approved by the State's highway safety data and traffic
records coordinating committee, that identifies and
prioritizes the State's highway safety data and traffic
records needs and goals, and that identifies performance-
based measures by which progress toward those goals will be
determined; or
``(B) provides, to the satisfaction of the Secretary--
``(i) a certification that the State has met the
requirements of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A);
``(ii) a multiyear plan that--
``(I) identifies and prioritizes the State's highway safety
data and traffic records needs and goals;
``(II) specifies how the State's incentive funds for the
fiscal year will be used to address those needs and goals;
and
``(III) identifies performance-based measures by which
progress toward those goals will be determined; and
``(iii) a certification that the State's highway safety
data and traffic records coordinating committee continues to
operate and supports the multiyear plan described in clause
(ii).
``(2) Grant amounts.--The amount of a first-year grant made
to a State for a fiscal year under this subsection shall
equal--
``(A) if the State is eligible for the grant under
paragraph (1)(A), $125,000, subject to the availability of
appropriations; and
``(B) if the State is eligible for the grant under
paragraph (1)(B), an amount determined by multiplying--
``(i) the amount appropriated to carry out this section for
such fiscal year; by
``(ii) the ratio that the funds apportioned to the State
under section 402 for fiscal year 1997 bears to the funds
apportioned to all States under section 402 for fiscal year
1997;
except that no State shall receive less than $225,000,
subject to the availability of appropriations.
``(f) Succeeding Year Grants.--
``(1) Eligibility.--A State shall be eligible for a grant
under this subsection in any fiscal year succeeding the first
fiscal year in which the State receives a grant under
subsection (e) if the State, to the satisfaction of the
Secretary--
``(A) submits or updates a multiyear plan described in
subsection (e)(1)(A)(iii);
``(B) certifies that the highway safety data and traffic
records coordinating committee of the State continues to
operate and supports the multiyear plan; and
``(C) reports annually on the State's progress in
implementing the multiyear plan.
``(2) Grant amounts.--The amount of a succeeding year grant
made to the State for a fiscal year under this paragraph
shall equal the amount determined by multiplying--
``(A) the amount appropriated to carry out this section for
such fiscal year; by
``(B) the ratio that the funds apportioned to the State
under section 402 for fiscal year 1997 bears to the funds
apportioned to all States under section 402 for fiscal year
1997;
except that no State shall receive less than $225,000,
subject to the availability of appropriations.
``(g) Administrative Expenses.--Funds authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section shall be subject to a
deduction not to exceed 5 percent for the necessary costs of
administering the provisions of this section.
``(h) Applicability of Chapter 1.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, all provisions of chapter 1 of this title that
are applicable to National Highway System funds, other than
provisions relating to the apportionment formula and
provisions limiting the expenditure of such funds to Federal-
aid highways, shall apply to the funds authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section.
``(2) Inconsistent provisions.--If the Secretary determines
that a provision of chapter 1 of this title is inconsistent
with this section, such provision shall not apply to funds
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section.
``(3) Credit for state and local expenditures.--The
aggregate of all expenditures made during any fiscal year by
a State and its political subdivisions (exclusive of Federal
funds) for carrying out the State highway safety program
under section 402 (other than planning and administration)
shall be available for the purpose of crediting such State
during such fiscal year for the non-Federal share of the cost
of any project under this section (other than one for
planning or administration) without regard to whether such
expenditures were actually made in connection with such
project.
``(4) Increased federal share for certain indian tribe
programs.--In the case of a highway safety data improvements
program carried out by an Indian tribe, if the Secretary is
satisfied that an Indian tribe does not have sufficient funds
available to meet the non-Federal share of the cost of such
program, the Secretary may increase the Federal share of the
cost thereof payable under this title to the extent
necessary.
``(5) Treatment of term `state highway department'.--In
applying provisions of chapter 1 in carrying out this
section, the term `State highway department' as used in such
provisions shall mean the Governor of a State and, in the
case of an Indian tribe program, the Secretary of the
Interior.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for such
chapter is amended by adding at the end the following:
``411. State highway safety data improvements.''.
SEC. 207. NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER.
(a) Transfer of Selected Functions to Non-Federal
Management.--Section 30302 of title 49, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Transfer of Selected Functions to Non-Federal
Management.--
``(1) Agreement.--The Secretary may enter into an agreement
with an organization that represents the interests of the
States to manage, administer, and operate the National Driver
Register's computer timeshare and user assistance functions.
If the Secretary decides to enter into such an agreement, the
Secretary shall ensure that the management of these functions
is compatible with this chapter and the regulations issued to
implement this chapter.
``(2) Required demonstration.--Any transfer of the National
Driver Register's computer timeshare and user assistance
functions to an organization that represents the interests of
the States shall begin only after a determination is made by
the Secretary that all States are participating in the
National Driver Register's `Problem Driver Pointer System'
(the system used by the Register to effect the exchange of
motor vehicle driving records), and that the system is
functioning properly.
``(3) Transition period.--Any agreement entered into under
this subsection shall include a provision for a transition
period sufficient to allow the States to make the budgetary
and legislative changes the States may need to pay fees
charged by the organization representing their interests for
their use of the National Driver Register's computer
timeshare and user assistance functions. During this
transition period, the Secretary shall continue to fund these
transferred functions.
``(4) Fees.--The total of the fees charged by the
organization representing the interests of the States in any
fiscal year for the use of the National Driver Register's
computer timeshare and user assistance functions shall not
exceed the total cost to the organization of performing these
functions in such fiscal year.
``(5) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in
this subsection may be construed to diminish, limit, or
otherwise affect the authority of the Secretary to carry out
this chapter.''.
(b) Access to Register Information.--
(1) Conforming amendments.--Section 30305(b) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (2) by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``, unless the information is about a
revocation or suspension still in effect on the date of the
request'';
(B) in paragraph (8), as redesignated by section 207(b) of
the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
324, 110 Stat. 3908)--
(i) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting
``subsection (a) of this section''; and
(ii) by moving the text of such paragraph 2 ems to the
left; and
(C) by redesignating paragraph (8), as redesignated by
section 502(b)(1) of the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act
of 1996 (Public Law 104-264, 110 Stat. 3262), as paragraph
(9).
(2) Federal agency access provision.--Section 30305(b) of
title 49, United States Code, is further amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (10) and
inserting such paragraph after paragraph (9);
[[Page H1960]]
(B) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
``(6) The head of a Federal department or agency that
issues motor vehicle operator's licenses may request the
chief driver licensing official of a State to obtain
information under subsection (a) of this section about an
individual applicant for a motor vehicle operator's license
from such department or agency. The department or agency may
receive the information, provided it transmits to the
Secretary a report regarding any individual who is denied a
motor vehicle operator's license by that department or agency
for cause; whose motor vehicle operator's license is revoked,
suspended, or canceled by that department or agency for
cause; or about whom the department or agency has been
notified of a conviction of any of the motor vehicle-related
offenses or comparable offenses listed in section 30304(a)(3)
and over whom the department or agency has licensing
authority. The report shall contain the information specified
in section 30304(b).''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(11) The head of a Federal department or agency
authorized to receive information regarding an individual
from the Register under this section may request and receive
such information from the Secretary.''.
SEC. 208. SAFETY STUDIES.
(a) Blowout Resistant Tires Study.--The Secretary shall
conduct a study on the benefit to public safety of the use of
blowout resistant tires on commercial motor vehicles and the
potential to decrease the incidence of accidents and
fatalities from accidents occurring as a result of blown out
tires.
(b) School Bus Occupant Safety Study.--The Secretary shall
conduct a study to assess occupant safety in school buses.
The study shall examine available information about occupant
safety and analyze options for improving occupant safety.
(c) Reports.--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 each study conducted
under this section.
(d) Limitation on Funding.--The Secretary may not expend
more than $200,000, from funds made available by section 210,
for conducting each study under this section.
SEC. 209. EFFECTIVENESS OF LAWS ESTABLISHING MAXIMUM BLOOD
ALCOHOL CONCENTRATIONS.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study
to evaluate the effectiveness of State laws that--
(1) deem any individual with a blood alcohol concentration
of 0.08 percent or greater while operating a motor vehicle to
be driving while intoxicated; and
(2) deem any individual under the age of 21 with a blood
alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent or greater while
operating a motor vehicle to be driving while intoxicated;
in reducing the number and severity of alcohol-involved
crashes.
(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall transmit
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Public Works
and the Environment of the Senate a report containing the
results of the study conducted under this section.
SEC. 210. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--The following sums are authorized to be
appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the
Mass Transit Account):
(1) NHTSA highway safety programs.--For carrying out
section 402 of title 23, United States Code, by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration $128,200,000 for fiscal
year 1998, $150,700,000 for fiscal year 1999, and
$195,700,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
(2) FHWA highway safety programs.--For carrying out section
402 of title 23, United States Code, by the Federal Highway
Administration $12,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $20,000,000
for fiscal year 1999, and $25,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2000 through 2003.
(3) NHTSA highway safety research and development.--For
carrying out section 403 of such title by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration $55,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
(4) FHWA highway safety research and development.--For
carrying out section 403 of such title by the Federal Highway
Administration $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998
through 2003.
(5) Occupant protection incentive grants.--For carrying out
section 405 of such title $9,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 and
$20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
(6) Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive
grant program.--For carrying out section 410 of such title
$35,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 and $45,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
(7) State highway safety data grants.--For carrying out
section 411 of such title $2,500,000 for fiscal year 1998 and
$12,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
(8) National driver register.--For carrying out chapter 303
of title 49, United States Code, by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, $2,300,000 for each of fiscal
years 1998 through 2003.
(b) Transfers.--In each fiscal year, the Secretary may
transfer any amounts remaining available under paragraph (5),
(6), or (7) of subsection (a) to the amounts made available
under any other of such paragraphs in order to ensure, to the
maximum extent possible, that each State receives the maximum
incentive funding for which the State is eligible under
sections 405, 406, and 410 of title 23, United States Code.
SEC. 211. TRANSPORTATION INJURY RESEARCH.
(a) Center for Transportation Injury Research.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to
establish and maintain a center for transportation injury
research at the Calspan University of Buffalo Research Center
affiliated with the State University of New York at Buffalo.
(2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(H) of
this Act, $2,000,000 per fiscal year shall be available to
carry out this subsection.
(b) Head and Spinal Cord Injury Research.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to the
Neuroscience Center for Excellence at Louisiana State
University and the Virginia Transportation Research Institute
at George Washington University for research and technology
development for preventing and minimizing head and spinal
cord injuries relating to automobile accidents.
(2) Funding.--Of amounts made available for each of fiscal
years 1999 through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(F), $500,000 per
fiscal year shall be available to carry out this subsection.
TITLE III--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS
SEC. 301. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE.
Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this
title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision of
law, the reference shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of title 49, United States Code.
SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.
Section 5302 is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 5302. Definitions
``(a) In General.--In this chapter, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Capital project.--The term `capital project' means a
project for--
``(A) acquiring, constructing, supervising, or inspecting
equipment or a facility for use in mass transportation,
expenses incidental to the acquisition or construction
(including designing, engineering, location surveying,
mapping, and acquiring rights of way), payments for the
capital portions of rail trackage rights agreements, transit-
related intelligent transportation systems, relocation
assistance, acquiring replacement housing sites, and
acquiring, constructing, relocating, and rehabilitating
replacement housing;
``(B) rehabilitating a bus;
``(C) remanufacturing a bus;
``(D) overhauling rail rolling stock;
``(E) preventive maintenance;
``(F) leasing equipment or a facility for use in mass
transportation subject to regulations the Secretary
prescribes limiting the leasing arrangements to those that
are more cost-effective than acquisition or construction; or
``(G) a mass transportation improvement that enhances
economic development or incorporates private investment
(including commercial and residential development and
pedestrian and bicycle access to a mass transportation
facility) because the improvement--
``(i) enhances the effectiveness of a mass transportation
project and is related physically or functionally to that
mass transportation project or establishes new or enhanced
coordination between mass transportation and other
transportation; and
``(ii) provides a fair share of revenue for mass
transportation that will be used for mass transportation.
``(2) Chief executive officer of a state.--The term `chief
executive officer of a State' includes the designee of the
chief executive officer.
``(3) Emergency regulation.--The term `emergency
regulation' means a regulation--
``(A) that is effective temporarily before the expiration
of the otherwise specified periods of time for public notice
and comment under section 5334(b) of this title; and
``(B) prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation as the
result of a finding that a delay in the effective date of the
regulation--
``(i) would injure seriously an important public interest;
``(ii) would frustrate substantially legislative policy and
intent; or
``(iii) would damage seriously a person or class without
serving an important public interest.
``(4) Fixed guideway.--The term `fixed guideway' means a
mass transportation facility--
``(A) using and occupying a separate right of way or rail
for the exclusive use of mass transportation and other high
occupancy vehicles; or
``(B) using a fixed catenary system and a right of way
usable by other forms of transportation.
``(5) Handicapped individual.--The term `handicapped
individual' means an individual who, because of illness,
injury, age, congenital malfunction, or other incapacity or
temporary or permanent disability (including an individual
who is a wheelchair user or has semiambulatory capability),
cannot use effectively, without special facilities, planning,
or design, mass transportation service or a mass
transportation facility.
``(6) Local governmental authority.--The term `local
governmental authority' includes--
``(A) a political subdivision of a State;
``(B) an authority of at least one State or political
subdivision of a State;
``(C) an Indian tribe; and
``(D) a public corporation, board, or commission
established under the laws of a State.
``(7) Mass transportation.--The term `mass transportation'
means transportation by a conveyance that provides regular
and continuing general or special transportation to the
public, but does not include school bus, charter, or
sightseeing transportation.
[[Page H1961]]
``(8) Net project cost.--The term `net project cost' means
the part of a project that reasonably cannot be financed from
revenues.
``(9) New bus model.--The term `new bus model' means a bus
model (including a model using alternative fuel)--
``(A) that has not been used in mass transportation in the
United States before the date of production of the model; or
``(B) used in mass transportation in the United States but
being produced with a major change in configuration or
components.
``(10) Preventive maintenance.--The term `preventive
maintenance' means a major activity intended to improve or
upgrade a transit vehicle or facility or repair or replace a
damaged, malfunctioning, overaged, or outmoded transit
vehicle or facility system, subsystem, element, or component.
Such term does not include any activity of a routine or
servicing nature, such as checking and replenishing fluid
levels, adjusting settings on otherwise properly operating
components, washing and cleaning a transit vehicle or
facility, changing tires and wheels, or repairing damage to a
vehicle or facility caused by an accident.
``(11) Public transportation.--The term `public
transportation' means mass transportation.
``(12) Regulation.--The term `regulation' means any part of
a statement of general or particular applicability of the
Secretary of Transportation designed to carry out, interpret,
or prescribe law or policy in carrying out this chapter.
``(13) State.--The term `State' means a State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern
Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin
Islands.
``(14) Transit.--The term `transit' means mass
transportation.
``(15) Transit enhancement.--The term `transit enhancement'
means with respect to any project or an area to be served by
the project, historic preservation, rehabilitation, and
operation of historic mass transportation buildings,
structures, and facilities (including historic bus and
railroad facilities and canals); projects that enhance
transit safety and security; landscaping and other scenic
beautification and art in and around mass transportation
stations, facilities, bus shelters, bridges, and buses;
bicycle and pedestrian access to mass transportation,
including bicycle storage facilities and installing equipment
for transporting bicycles on mass transportation vehicles;
projects that enhance access for the disabled to mass
transportation; and archaeological planning and research
related to mass transportation projects.
``(16) Urban area.--The term `urban area' means an area
that includes a municipality or other built-up place that the
Secretary of Transportation, after considering local patterns
and trends of urban growth, decides is appropriate for a
local mass transportation system to serve individuals in the
locality.
``(17) Urbanized area.--The term `urbanized area' means an
area--
``(A) encompassing at least an urbanized area within a
State that the Secretary of Commerce designates; and
``(B) designated as an urbanized area within boundaries
fixed by State and local officials and approved by the
Secretary of Transportation.
``(b) Authority To Modify `Handicapped Individual'.--The
Secretary of Transportation by regulation may modify the
definition of subsection (a)(5) as it applies to section
5307(d)(1)(D) of this title.''.
SEC. 303. METROPOLITAN PLANNING.
(a) Goals and Objectives of Planning Process.--Section
5303(b) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Goals and Objectives of Planning Process.--
``(1) Consideration.--To the extent that the metropolitan
planning organization determines appropriate, the
metropolitan transportation planning process may include
consideration of goals and objectives that--
``(A) support the economic vitality of the metropolitan
area, especially by enabling global competitiveness,
productivity, and efficiency;
``(B) increase the safety and security of the
transportation system for all users;
``(C) increase the accessibility and mobility for people
and freight;
``(D) protect and enhance the environment, conserve energy,
and enhance quality of life;
``(E) enhance the integration and connectivity of the
transportation system, across and between modes, for people
and freight;
``(F) promote efficient system utilization and operation;
and
``(G) preserve and optimize the existing transportation
system.
This paragraph shall apply to the development of long-range
transportation plans and transportation improvement programs.
``(2) Conversion to goals and objectives.--The metropolitan
planning organization shall cooperatively determine with the
State and mass transportation operators how the
considerations listed in paragraph (1) are translated into
metropolitan goals and objectives and how they are factored
into decisionmaking.''.
(b) Coordination.--Section 5303(e) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(4) Project located in multiple mpos.--If a project is
located within the boundaries of more than one metropolitan
planning organization, the metropolitan planning
organizations shall coordinate plans regarding the
project.''.
(c) Long-Range Transportation Plan.--Section 5303(f) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``transportation'' after
``long-range'';
(2) in paragraph (1) by striking ``at least shall--'' and
inserting ``shall contain, at a minimum, the following:'';
(3) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) by striking ``identify'' and inserting ``An
identification of''; and
(B) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a
period;
(4) by striking paragraph (1)(B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) A financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted
transportation plan can be implemented, indicates resources
from public and private sources that are reasonably expected
to be made available to carry out the plan and recommends any
additional financing strategies for needed projects and
programs. The financial plan may include, for illustrative
purposes, additional projects that would be included in the
adopted transportation plan if reasonable additional
resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were
available. For the purpose of developing the transportation
plan, the metropolitan planning organization and State shall
cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will be
available to support plan implementation.'';
(5) in paragraph (1)(C)--
(A) by striking ``assess'' and inserting ``An assessment
of''; and
(B) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period;
(6) in paragraph (1)(D) by striking ``indicate'' and
inserting ``Indicate'';
(7) in paragraph (4) by inserting after ``employees,'' the
following: ``freight shippers and providers of freight
transportation services,''; and
(8) in paragraph (5) by inserting ``transportation'' before
``plan''.
SEC. 304. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Section 5304 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``2 years'' and inserting
``3 years''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) may include, for illustrative purposes, additional
projects that would be included in the adopted transportation
plan if reasonable additional resources beyond those
identified in the financial plan were available.''.
SEC. 305. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT AREAS.
Section 5305(d)(1) is amended by striking ``of the National
Highway System'' each place it appears and inserting the
following: ``under the National Highway System and high
risk road safety programs,''.
SEC. 306. URBANIZED AREA FORMULA GRANTS.
(a) Section Heading.--
(1) Amendment to section.--Section 5307 is amended by
striking the section heading and inserting the following:
``Sec. 5307. Urbanized area formula grants''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The item relating to section
5307 in the table of sections for chapter 53 is amended to
read as follows:
``5307. Urbanized area formula grants.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 5307(a) is amended--
(1) by striking ``In this section--'' and inserting ``In
this section, the following definitions apply:'';
(2) by inserting ``Associated capital maintenance items.--
The term'' after ``(1)''; and
(3) by inserting ``Designated recipient.--The term'' after
``(2)''.
(c) General Authority.--Section 5307(b) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``, improvement, and operating costs'' and
inserting ``and improvement costs''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``In
an urbanized area with a population of less than 200,000, the
Secretary may also make grants under this section to finance
the operating cost of equipment and facilities for use in
mass transportation.'';
(2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (5); and
(3) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
(d) Advance Construction.--Section 5307(g)(3) is amended by
striking ``the amount by which'' and all that follows through
the period at the end and inserting ``the most favorable
financing terms reasonably available for the project at the
time of borrowing. The applicant shall certify, in a manner
satisfactory to the Secretary, that the applicant has shown
reasonable diligence in seeking the most favorable financing
terms.''.
(e) Coordination of Reviews.--Section 5307(i)(2) is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``To the extent
practicable, the Secretary shall coordinate such reviews with
any related State or local reviews.''.
(f) Transit Enhancement Activities.--Section 5307(k) is
amended to read as follows:
``(k) Transit Enhancement Activities.--2 percent of the
funds apportioned to urbanized areas of at least 200,000
population under section 5336 for a fiscal year shall only be
available for transit enhancement activities.''.
(g) Conforming Amendments.--Section 5307(n) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(1)'' the first place it appears and all
that follows through ``(2)''; and
(2) by inserting ``5319,'' after ``5318,''.
SEC. 307. MASS TRANSIT ACCOUNT BLOCK GRANTS.
Section 5308, and the item relating to section 5308 in the
table of sections for chapter 53, are repealed.
SEC. 308. CAPITAL PROGRAM GRANTS AND LOANS.
(a) Section Heading.--Section 5309 is amended in the
section heading by striking ``Discretionary'' and inserting
``Capital program''.
[[Page H1962]]
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to section
5309 in the table of sections for chapter 53 is amended by
striking ``Discretionary'' and inserting ``Capital program''.
(c) General Authority.--Section 5309(a) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1)(E) and inserting the
following:
``(E) capital projects to modernize existing fixed guideway
systems;'';
(2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1)(F);
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (1)(G)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (1)(G) the following:
``(H) capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, and
purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-
related facilities.''.
(d) Consideration of Decreased Commuter Rail
Transportation.--Section 5309(c) is repealed.
(e) Criteria for Grants and Loans for Fixed Guideway
Systems.--Section 5309(e) is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Criteria for Grants and Loans for Fixed Guideway
Systems.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation may
approve a grant or loan under this section for a capital
project for a new fixed guideway system or extension of an
existing fixed guideway system only if the Secretary
determines that the proposed project is--
``(A) based on the results of an alternatives analysis and
preliminary engineering;
``(B) justified based on a comprehensive review of its
mobility improvements, environmental benefits, cost
effectiveness, and operating efficiencies; and
``(C) supported by an acceptable degree of local financial
commitment, including evidence of stable and dependable
financing sources to construct, maintain, and operate the
system or extension.
``(2) Alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering.--
In evaluating a project under paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary
shall analyze and consider the results of the alternatives
analysis and preliminary engineering for the project.
``(3) Project justification.--In evaluating a project under
paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall--
``(A) consider the direct and indirect costs of relevant
alternatives;
``(B) consider factors such as congestion relief, improved
mobility, air pollution, noise pollution, energy consumption,
and all associated ancillary and mitigation costs necessary
to carry out each alternative analyzed;
``(C) identify and consider existing mass transportation
supportive land use policies and future land use patterns and
the costs of urban sprawl;
``(D) consider the degree to which the project increases
the mobility of the mass transportation dependent population
or promotes economic development;
``(E) consider population density, current transit
ridership in the corridor, and cost per new rider;
``(F) consider the technical capability of the grant
recipient to construct the project;
``(G) adjust the project justification to reflect
differences in local land, construction, and operating costs;
and
``(H) consider other factors the Secretary determines
appropriate to carry out this chapter.
``(4) Local financial commitment.--
``(A) Evaluation of project.--In evaluating a project under
paragraph (1)(C), the Secretary shall require that--
``(i) the proposed project plan provides for the
availability of contingency amounts the Secretary determines
to be reasonable to cover unanticipated cost increases;
``(ii) each proposed local source of capital and operating
financing is stable, reliable, and available within the
proposed project timetable; and
``(iii) local resources are available to operate the
overall proposed mass transportation system (including
essential feeder bus and other services necessary to achieve
the projected ridership levels) without requiring a reduction
in existing mass transportation services to operate the
proposed project.
``(B) Stability, reliability, and availability of local
financing.--In assessing the stability, reliability, and
availability of proposed sources of local financing for the
project, the Secretary shall consider--
``(i) existing grant commitments;
``(ii) the degree to which financing sources are dedicated
to the purposes proposed;
``(iii) any debt obligation that exists or is proposed by
the recipient for the proposed project or other mass
transportation purpose; and
``(iv) the extent to which the project has a local
financial commitment that exceeds the required non-Federal
share of the cost of the project.
``(5) Regulations.--No later than 120 days after the date
of the enactment of the Building Efficient Surface
Transportation and Equity Act of 1998, the Secretary shall
issue regulations on how the Secretary will evaluate and rate
the projects based on the results of alternatives analysis,
project justification, and the degree of local financial
commitment as required under this subsection.
``(6) Project evaluation and rating.--A proposed project
may advance from alternatives analysis to preliminary
engineering, and may advance from preliminary engineering to
final design and construction, only if the Secretary finds
that the project meets the requirements of this section and
there is a reasonable likelihood that the project will
continue to meet such requirements. In making such findings,
the Secretary shall evaluate and rate the project as either
highly recommended, recommended, or not recommended based on
the results of alternatives analysis, the project
justification criteria, and the degree of local financial
commitment as required under this subsection. In rating the
projects, the Secretary shall provide, in addition to the
overall project rating, individual ratings for each criteria
established under the regulations issued under paragraph (5).
``(7) Full funding grant agreement.--A project financed
under this subsection shall be carried out through a full
funding grant agreement. The Secretary shall enter into a
full funding grant agreement based on the evaluations and
ratings required under this subsection. The Secretary shall
not enter into a full funding grant agreement for a project
unless that project is authorized for final design and
construction.
``(8) Limitations on applicability.--
``(A) Projects with a section 5309 federal share of less
than $25,000,000.--A project for a new fixed guideway system
or extension of an existing fixed guideway system is not
subject to the requirements of this subsection, and the
simultaneous evaluation of similar projects in at least 2
corridors in a metropolitan area may not be limited, if the
assistance provided under this section with respect to the
project is less than $25,000,000.
``(B) Projects in nonattainment areas.--The simultaneous
evaluation of projects in at least 2 corridors in a
metropolitan area may not be limited and the Secretary shall
make decisions under this subsection with expedited
procedures that will promote carrying out an approved State
Implementation Plan in a timely way if a project is--
``(i) located in a nonattainment area;
``(ii) a transportation control measure (as defined by the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)); and
``(iii) required to carry out the State Implementation
Plan.
``(C) Projects financed with highway funds.--This
subsection does not apply to a project financed completely
with amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund
(other than the Mass Transit Account).
``(D) Previously issued letter of intent or full funding
grant agreement.--This subsection does not apply to projects
for which the Secretary has issued a letter of intent or
entered into a full funding grant agreement before the date
of the enactment of this subparagraph.''.
(f) Letters of Intent and Full Funding Grant Agreements.--
Section 5309(g) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Financing'' and
inserting ``Funding'';
(2) by striking ``full financing'' each place it appears
and inserting ``full funding''; and
(3) in paragraph (1)(B)--
(A) by striking ``30 days'' and inserting ``60 days'';
(B) by inserting before the first comma ``or entering into
a full funding grant agreement''; and
(C) by striking ``issuance of the letter.'' and inserting
``letter or agreement. The Secretary shall include with the
notification a copy of the proposed letter or agreement as
well as the evaluations and ratings for the project.''.
(g) Allocating Amounts.--Section 5309(m) is amended to read
as follows:
``(m) Allocating Amounts.--
``(1) In general.--Of the amounts made available by section
5338(b) for grants and loans under this section for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003--
``(A) 40 percent shall be available for fixed guideway
modernization;
``(B) 40 percent shall be available for capital projects
for new fixed guideway systems and extensions to existing
fixed guideway systems; and
``(C) 20 percent shall be available to replace,
rehabilitate, and buy buses and related equipment and to
construct bus-related facilities.
``(2) Limitation on amounts available for activities other
than final design and construction.--Not more than 8 percent
of the amounts made available in each fiscal year by
paragraph (1)(B) shall be available for activities other than
final design and construction.
``(3) Bus and bus facility grants.--
``(A) Consideration.--In making grants under paragraph
(1)(C), the Secretary shall consider the age of buses, bus
fleets, related equipment, and bus-related facilities.
``(B) Funding for bus testing facility.--Of the amounts
made available by paragraph (1)(C), $3,000,000 shall be
available in each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to carry
out section 5318.
``(C) Funding for bus technology pilot program.--Of the
funds made available by paragraph (1)(C), 10 percent shall be
available in each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to carry
out the bus technology pilot program under subsection (o).
``(D) Other than urbanized areas.--Of amounts made
available by paragraph (1)(C), not less than 5.5 percent
shall be available in each fiscal year for other than
urbanized areas.
``(4) Eligibility for assistance for multiple projects.--A
person applying for, or receiving, assistance for a project
described in clause (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) may
receive assistance for a project described in another of
those clauses.''.
(h) Advance Construction.--Section 5309(n)(2) is amended by
striking ``in a way'' and inserting ``in a manner''.
(i) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Relocation of subsection.--Section 5309 is amended--
(A) by striking subsection (f); and
(B) by redesignating subsections (g) through (o) as
subsections (f) through (n), respectively.
(2) Cross references.--Chapter 53 is amended--
(A) in section 5319 by striking ``5309(h)'' and inserting
``5309(g)'';
(B) in section 5328(a)(2) by striking ``5309(e)(1)-(6) of
this title'' and inserting ``5309(e)''; and
[[Page H1963]]
(C) in section 5328(a)(4) by striking ``5309(m)(2) of this
title'' and inserting ``5309(o)(1)''.
(3) References to full funding grant agreements.--Sections
5320 and 5328(a)(4) are each amended by striking ``full
financing'' each place it appears and inserting ``full
funding''. The subsection heading for section 5320(e) is
amended by striking ``Financing'' and inserting ``Funding''.
(j) Bus Technology Pilot Program.--Section 5309 is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(o) Bus Technology Pilot Program.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a pilot
program for the testing and deployment of new bus technology,
including clean fuel and alternative fuel technology.
``(2) Projects.--Under the pilot program, the Secretary
shall carry out projects for testing and deployment of new
bus technology, including clean fuel and alternative fuel
technology. The Secretary shall select projects for funding
under the pilot program that will employ a variety of
technologies and will be performed in a variety of geographic
areas of the country with populations under 50,000, between
50,000 and 200,000, and over 200,000.
``(3) Report.--Not later than April 30, 2000, the Secretary
shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate a report on the results of the pilot program,
including a description of the projects carried out, the
amounts obligated, and the status of the test and deployment
activities undertaken.''.
(k) Reports.--Section 5309 is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(p) Reports.--
``(1) Funding levels and allocations of funds for fixed
guideway systems.--
``(A) Annual report.--Not later than the first Monday in
February of each year, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs of the Senate a report that includes a proposal
on the allocation of amounts to be made available to finance
grants and loans for capital projects for new fixed guideway
systems and extensions to existing fixed guideway systems
among applicants for those amounts.
``(B) Recommendations on funding.--The annual report under
this paragraph shall include evaluations and ratings, as
required under subsection (e), for each project that is
authorized or has received funds under this section since the
date of the enactment of this Act or October 1 of the
preceding fiscal year, whichever date is earlier. The report
shall also include recommendations of projects for funding
based on the evaluations and ratings and on existing
commitments and anticipated funding levels for the next 3
fiscal years and for the next 10 fiscal years based on
information currently available to the Secretary.
``(2) Supplemental report on new starts.--The Secretary
shall submit a report to Congress on the 31st day of August
of each year that describes the Secretary's evaluation and
rating of each project that has completed alternatives
analysis or preliminary engineering since the date of the
last report. The report shall include all relevant
information that supports the evaluation and rating of each
project, including a summary of each project's financial
plan.
``(3) Annual gao review.--the General Accounting Office
shall--
``(A) conduct an annual review of--
``(i) the processes and procedures for evaluating and
rating projects and recommending projects; and
``(ii) the Secretary's implementation of such processes and
procedures; and
``(B) shall report to Congress on the results of such
review by April 30 of each year.''.
(l) Project Defined.--Section 5309 is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(q) Project Defined.--In this section, the term `project'
means, with respect to a new fixed guideway system or
extension to an existing fixed guideway system, a minimum
operable segment of the project.''.
SEC. 309. DOLLAR VALUE OF MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall not consider the
dollar value of mobility improvements, as specified in the
report required under section 5309(m)(1)(C) or section
5309(p) (as added by this Act), in evaluating projects under
section 5309 of title 49, United States Code, in developing
regulations, or in carrying out any other duty of the
Secretary.
(b) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a
study of the dollar value of mobility improvements and the
relationship of mobility improvements to the overall
transportation justification of a new fixed guideway system
or extension to an existing system.
(2) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2000, the Secretary
shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate a report on the results of the study, including an
analysis of the factors relevant to determining the dollar
value of mobility improvements.
SEC. 310. FORMULA GRANTS AND LOANS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS OF
ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES.
(a) Section Heading.--Section 5310 is amended in the
section heading by striking ``Grants'' and inserting
``Formula grants''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to section
5310 in the table of sections for chapter 53 is amended by
inserting ``formula'' before ``grants''.
SEC. 311. FORMULA PROGRAM FOR OTHER THAN URBANIZED AREAS.
(a) Intercity Bus Transportation.--Section 5311 is
amended--
(1) in the section heading by striking ``Financial
assistance'' and inserting ``Formula grants''; and
(2) in subsection (f)(1) by striking ``10 percent of the
amount made available in the fiscal year ending September 30,
1993, and''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to section
5311 in the table of sections for chapter 53 is amended by
striking ``Financial assistance'' and inserting ``Formula
grant''.
SEC. 312. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND TRAINING
PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--Section 5312 is amended--
(1) in each of subsections (a) and (b) by striking the
first parenthetical phrase; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Joint Partnerships for Deployment of Innovation.--
``(1) Consortium defined.--In this subsection, the term
`consortium' means one or more public or private
organizations located in the United States which provide mass
transportation service to the public and one or more
businesses, including small and medium sized businesses,
incorporated in a State, offering goods or services or
willing to offer goods or services to mass transportation
operators. It may include as additional members public or
private research organizations located in the United States,
or State or local governmental authorities.
``(2) Grants and agreements.--The Secretary may make grants
and enter into contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
agreements with consortia selected competitively from among
public and private partnerships to promote the early
deployment of innovation in mass transportation technology,
services, management, or operational practices. Any such
grant, contract, or agreement shall provide for the sharing
of costs, risks, and rewards of early deployment of
innovation. Such grants, contracts, and agreements shall be
subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary
prescribes.
``(3) Consultation requirement.--This subsection shall be
carried out in consultation with the transit industry.
``(4) Cost sharing.--Any consortium that receives a grant
or enters into a contract or agreement under this subsection
shall provide at least 50 percent of the cost of any joint
partnership project. Any business, organization, person, or
governmental body may contribute funds to such project.
``(5) Public notice.--The Secretary shall periodically give
public notice of--
``(A) the technical areas for which joint partnerships are
solicited under this subsection;
``(B) required qualifications of consortia desiring to
participate in such partnerships;
``(C) the method of selection and evaluation criteria to be
used in selecting participating consortia and projects under
this subsection; and
``(D) the process by which projects will be awarded under
this subsection.
``(6) Acceptance of revenues.--The Secretary may accept a
portion of the revenues resulting from sales of an innovation
supported under this subsection and deposit any revenues
accepted into a special account of the Treasury of the United
States to be established for purposes of carrying out this
subsection.
``(e) International Mass Transportation Program.--
``(1) Activities.--The Secretary is authorized to engage in
activities to inform the United States domestic mass
transportation community about technological innovations
available in the international marketplace and activities
that may afford domestic businesses the opportunity to become
globally competitive in the export of mass transportation
products and services. These activities may include--
``(A) development, monitoring, assessment, and
dissemination domestically of information about worldwide
mass transportation market opportunities;
``(B) cooperation with foreign public sector entities in
research, development, demonstration, training, and other
forms of technology transfer and exchange of experts and
information;
``(C) advocacy, in international mass transportation
markets, of firms, products, and services available from the
United States;
``(D) informing the international market about the
technical quality of mass transportation products and
services through participation in seminars, expositions, and
similar activities; and
``(E) offering those Federal Transit Administration
technical services which cannot be readily obtained from the
United States private sector to foreign public authorities
planning or undertaking mass transportation projects if the
cost of these services will be recovered under the terms of
each project.
``(2) Cooperation.--The Secretary may carry out activities
under this subsection in cooperation with other Federal
agencies, State or local agencies, public and private
nonprofit institutions, government laboratories, foreign
governments, or any other organization the Secretary
determines is appropriate.
``(3) Funding.--The funds available to carry out this
subsection shall include funds paid to the Secretary by any
cooperating organization or person and shall be deposited by
the Secretary in a special account in the Treasury of the
United States to be established for purposes of carrying out
this subsection. The funds shall be available for promotional
materials, travel, reception, and representation expenses
necessary to carry out the activities authorized by this
subsection. Reimbursement for services provided under this
subsection shall be credited to the appropriation account
concerned.''.
(b) Mass Transportation Technology Development and
Deployment.--
[[Page H1964]]
(1) General authority.--The Secretary may make grants and
enter into contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
agreements with eligible consortia to promote the development
and early deployment of innovation in mass transportation
technology, services, management, or operational practices.
The Secretary shall coordinate activities under this section
with related activities under programs of other Federal
departments and agencies.
(2) Eligibility criteria.--To be qualified to receive
funding under this section, an eligible consortium shall--
(A) be organized for the purpose of designing, developing,
and deploying advanced mass transportation technologies that
address identified technological impediments in the mass
transportation field;
(B) have an established mechanism for designing,
developing, and deploying advanced mass transportation
technologies as evidenced by participation in a Federal
program such as the consortia funded pursuant to Public Law
102-396;
(C) facilitate the participation in the consortium of
small- and medium-sized businesses in conjunction with large
established manufacturers, as appropriate;
(D) be designed to use State and Federal funding to attract
private capital in the form of grants or investments to
further the purposes of this section; and
(E) provide for the sharing of costs, risks, and rewards of
early deployment of innovation in mass transportation
technologies.
(3) Grant requirements.--Grants, contracts, and agreements
under paragraph (1) shall be eligible under and consistent
with section 5312 of title 49, United States Code, and shall
be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary
prescribes.
(4) Federal share of costs.--The Federal share of costs for
a grant, contract, or agreement with a consortium under this
subsection shall not exceed 50 percent of the net project
cost.
(5) Eligible consortium defined.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``eligible consortium'' means a consortium
of--
(A) businesses incorporated in the United States;
(B) public or private educational or research organizations
located in the United States;
(C) entities of State or local governments in the United
States;
(D) Federal laboratories; or
(E) existing consortia funded pursuant to Public Law 103-
396.
(6) Funding.--
(A) Set-aside of amounts made available under section
5338(d).--Of the funds made available by or appropriated
under section 5338(d) of title 49, United States Code, for a
fiscal year $5,000,000 shall be available to carry out this
subsection.
(B) Set-aside of amounts made available under section
5309(o).--Of the funds made available to carry out the bus
technology pilot program under section 5309(o) of title 49,
United States Code, for a fiscal year $5,000,000 shall be
available to carry out this subsection.
(c) Fuel Cell Bus and Bus Facilities Program.--Of the funds
made available for a fiscal year to carry out the bus
technology pilot program under section 5309(o) of title 49,
United States Code, $4,850,000 shall be available to carry
out the fuel cell powered transit bus program and the
intermodal transportation fuel cell bus maintenance facility.
(d) Advanced Technology Pilot Project.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants for the
development of low speed magnetic levitation technology for
public transportation purposes in urban areas to demonstrate
energy efficiency, congestion mitigation, and safety
benefits.
(2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(H) of
this Act, $5,000,000 per fiscal year shall be available to
carry out this subsection.
(3) Federal share.--The Federal share payable on account of
activities carried out using a grant made under this
subsection shall be 80 percent of the cost of such
activities.
(e) Intelligent Transportation Systems Applications.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants for the
study, design, and demonstration of fixed guideway technology
in North Orange-South Seminole County, Florida, and in
Galveston, Texas.
(2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available pursuant to
section 5338(d) of title 49, United States Code, for fiscal
year 1999, $1,500,000 shall be available to carry out this
subsection. Of such sums, $750,000 shall be available for
fixed guideway activities in North Orange-South Seminole
County, Florida, and $750,000 shall be available for fixed
guideway activities in Galveston, Texas.
SEC. 313. NATIONAL PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS.
Section 5314(a)(2) is amended by striking ``$2,000,000''
and inserting ``$3,000,000''.
SEC. 314. NATIONAL TRANSIT INSTITUTE.
(a) In General.--Section 5315 is amended--
(1) in the section heading by striking ``mass
transportation'' and inserting ``transit''; and
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``mass transportation'' in the first
sentence and inserting ``transit'';
(B) by inserting ``and architectural design'' before the
semicolon at the end of paragraph (5);
(C) by striking ``carrying out'' in paragraph (7) and
inserting ``delivering'';
(D) by inserting ``, construction management, insurance,
and risk management'' before the semicolon at the end of
paragraph (11);
(E) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (13);
(F) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (14) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(G) by adding at the end the following:
``(15) innovative finance.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to section
5315 in the table of sections for chapter 53 is amended by
striking ``mass transportation'' and inserting ``transit''.
SEC. 315. UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INSTITUTES.
Section 5316, and the item relating to section 5316 in the
table of sections for chapter 53, are repealed.
SEC. 316. TRANSPORTATION CENTERS.
Section 5317, and the item relating to section 5317 in the
table of sections for chapter 53, are repealed.
SEC. 317. BUS TESTING FACILITIES.
(a) Operation and Maintenance.--Section 5318(b) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``make a contract with'' and inserting
``enter into a contract or cooperative agreement with, or
make a grant to,'';
(2) by inserting ``or organization'' after ``person'';
(3) by inserting ``, cooperative agreement, or grant''
after ``The contract''; and
(4) by inserting ``mass transportation'' after ``and
other''.
(b) Availability of Amounts.--Section 5318(d) is amended by
striking ``make a contract with'' and inserting ``enter into
a contract or cooperative agreement with, or make a grant
to,''.
SEC. 318. BICYCLE FACILITIES.
Section 5319 is amended by striking ``under this section is
for 90 percent of the cost of the project'' and inserting
``made eligible by this section is for 90 percent of the cost
of the project; except that, if the grant or any portion of
the grant is made with funds required to be expended under
section 5307(k) and the project involves providing bicycle
access to mass transportation, that grant or portion of that
grant shall be at a Federal share of 95 percent''.
SEC. 319. GENERAL PROVISIONS ON ASSISTANCE.
(a) Technical Amendment.--Section 5323(d) is amended by
striking ``Buying and Operating
Buses.--''
and inserting ``Condition on Charter Bus Transportation
Service.--''.
(b) Government's Share.--Section 5323(i) is amended to read
as follows:
``(i) Government Share of Costs for Certain Projects.--A
grant for a project to be assisted under this chapter that
involves acquiring vehicle-related equipment required by the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et
seq.) or vehicle-related equipment (including clean fuel or
alternative fuel vehicle-related equipment) for purposes of
complying with or maintaining compliance with the Clean Air
Act, is for 90 percent of the net project cost of such
equipment attributable to compliance with such Acts. The
Secretary shall have discretion to determine, through
practicable administrative procedures, the costs of such
equipment attributable to compliance with such Acts.''.
(c) Buy America.--Section 5323(j)(7) is amended to read as
follows:
``(7) Opportunity to correct inadvertent error.--The
Secretary may allow a manufacturer or supplier of steel,
iron, or manufactured goods to correct after bid opening any
certification made under this subsection if the Secretary is
satisfied that the manufacturer or supplier submitted an
incorrect certification as a result of an inadvertent or
clerical error.''.
(d) Participation of Governmental Agencies in Design and
Delivery of Transportation Services.--Section 5323 is amended
by redesignating subsections (k) and (l) as subsections (l)
and (m) and by inserting after subsection (j) the following:
``(k) Participation of Governmental Agencies in Design and
Delivery of Transportation Services.--To the extent feasible,
governmental agencies and nonprofit organizations that
receive assistance from Government sources (other than the
Department of Transportation) for nonemergency transportation
services shall participate and coordinate with recipients of
assistance under this chapter in the design and delivery of
transportation services and shall be included in the planning
for such services.''.
(e) Submission of Certifications.--Section 5323 is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(n) Submission of Certifications.--A certification
required under this chapter and any additional certification
or assurance required by law or regulation to be submitted to
the Secretary may be consolidated into a single document to
be submitted annually as part of a grant application under
this chapter. The Secretary shall publish annually a list of
all certifications required under this chapter with the
publication required under section 5336(e)(2).''.
(f) Required Payments and Eligible Costs.--Section 5323 is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(o) Required Payments and Eligible Costs of Projects That
Enhance Economic Development or Incorporate Private
Investment.--
``(1) Required payments.--Each grant or loan under this
chapter for a capital project described in section
5302(a)(1)(G) shall require that a person making an agreement
to occupy space in a facility funded under this chapter pay a
reasonable share of the costs of the facility through rental
payments and other means.
``(2) Eligible costs.--Eligible costs for a capital project
described in section 5302(a)(1)(G)--
``(A) include property acquisition, demolition of existing
structures, site preparation, utilities, building
foundations, walkways, open space, and a capital project for,
and improving, equipment or a facility for an intermodal
transfer facility or transportation mall; but
``(B) do not include construction of a commercial revenue
producing facility or a part of a public facility not related
to mass transportation.''.
[[Page H1965]]
SEC. 320. CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Efficient Procurement.--Section 5325 is amended--
(1) by striking subsections (b) and (c);
(2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (b); and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Efficient Procurement.--A recipient may award a
procurement contract under this chapter to other than the
lowest bidder when the award furthers an objective consistent
with the purposes of this chapter, including improved long-
term operating efficiency and lower long-term costs.''.
(b) Architectural, Engineering, and Design Contracts.--
Section 5325(b), as redesignated by subsection (a)(2), is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``or requirement'' after ``A contract'';
and
(2) by inserting before the last sentence the following:
``When awarding such contracts, recipients of assistance
under this chapter shall maximize efficiencies of
administration by accepting nondisputed audits conducted by
other government agencies, as provided in subparagraphs (C)
through (F) of section 112(b)(2) of title 23.''.
SEC. 321. SPECIAL PROCUREMENTS.
(a) Turnkey System Projects.--Section 5326(a) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Turnkey system project defined.--In this subsection,
the term `turnkey system project' means a project under which
a recipient enters into a contract with a seller, firm, or
consortium of firms to design and build a mass transportation
system or an operable segment thereof that meets specific
performance criteria. Such project may also include an option
to finance, or operate for a period of time, the system or
segment or any combination of designing, building, operating,
or maintaining such system or segment.'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``Selection of turnkey projects.--'' after
``(2)''; and
(B) by inserting ``or an operable segment of a mass
transportation system'' after ``transportation system'';
(3) in paragraph (3) by inserting ``Demonstrations.--''
after ``(3)''; and
(4) by aligning paragraphs (2) and (3) with paragraph (1)
of such section, as amended by paragraph (1) of this section.
(b) Technical Amendment.--Section 5326 is amended by
striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Acquiring Rolling Stock.--A recipient of financial
assistance of the United States Government under this chapter
may enter into a contract to expend that assistance to
acquire rolling stock--
``(1) based on--
``(A) initial capital costs; or
``(B) performance, standardization, life cycle costs, and
other factors; or
``(2) with a party selected through a competitive
procurement process.
``(d) Procuring Associated Capital Maintenance Items.--A
recipient of a grant under section 5307 of this title
procuring an associated capital maintenance item under
section 5307(b) may enter into a contract directly with the
original manufacturer or supplier of the item to be replaced,
without receiving prior approval of the Secretary, if the
recipient first certifies in writing to the Secretary that--
``(1) the manufacturer or supplier is the only source for
the item; and
``(2) the price of the item is no more than the price
similar customers pay for the item.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5334(b)(4) is amended by
striking ``5323(a)(2), (c) and (e), 5324(c), and 5325 of this
title'' and inserting ``5323(a)(2), 5323(c), 5323(e),
5324(c), 5325(a), 5325(b), 5326(c), and 5326(d)''.
SEC. 322. PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW.
Section 5327(c)(2) is amended--
(1) by striking ``make contracts'' and inserting ``enter
into contracts''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end of the first
sentence the following: ``and to provide technical assistance
to correct deficiencies identified in compliance reviews and
audits carried out under this section''.
SEC. 323. STUDY ON ALCOHOL AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES RANDOM
TESTING RATE CALCULATION.
(a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine how the alcohol and controlled substances random
testing rate under section 5331 of title 49, United States
Code, should be calculated.
(b) Considerations.--In conducting the study under this
section, the Secretary shall consider--
(1) the differences in random testing results among
employers subject to section 5331 of title 49, United States
Code;
(2) the differences in random testing results among
employers subject to such section in areas with populations
of at least 200,000, in areas with populations less than
200,000, and in other than urbanized areas;
(3) the deterrent effect of random testing; and
(4) the effect of random testing on public safety.
(c) Report.--Not later than December 31, 1999, the
Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results
of the study conducted under this section, together with any
proposed changes to the calculation of the random alcohol and
controlled substances testing rate.
SEC. 324. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES.
(a) Training and Conference Costs.--Section 5334(a) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(10) collect fees to cover the costs of training or
conferences, including costs of promotional materials,
sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration to promote
mass transportation and credit amounts collected to the
appropriation concerned.''.
(b) Flexibility for Areas With Populations Under 200,000.--
Section 5334(i) is amended to read as follows:
``(i) Flexibility for Areas With Populations Under
200,000.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of the Building Efficient Surface Transportation
and Equity Act of 1998, the Secretary shall seek public
comment on ways to simplify and streamline the administration
of the formula program for urbanized areas with populations
of less than 200,000 and shall make, to the extent feasible
and consistent with statutory requirements, every effort to
ease any administrative burdens thereby identified.''.
(c) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Section heading.--The heading for section 5334 is
amended by inserting ``provisions'' after ``Administrative''.
(2) Table of sections.--The item relating to section 5334
in the table of sections for chapter 53 is amended by
inserting ``provisions'' after ``Administrative''.
SEC. 325. REPORTS AND AUDITS.
(a) National Transit Database.--Section 5335(a) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Reporting System and Uniform System of
Accounts and Records'' and inserting ``National Transit
Database''; and
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``by uniform categories,'' and inserting
``using uniform categories''; and
(B) by striking ``and a uniform system of accounts and
records'' and inserting ``and using a uniform system of
accounts''.
(b) Reports.--Section 5335 is further amended--
(1) by striking subsections (b) and (c); and
(2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (b).
SEC. 326. APPORTIONMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FORMULA GRANTS.
Section 5336 is amended--
(1) in the section heading by striking ``block grants'' and
inserting ``formula grants''; and
(2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Limitation on Operating Assistance and Preventive
Maintenance.--Of the funds apportioned under this section for
urbanized areas, such sums as may be necessary shall be
available for operating assistance for urbanized areas with
populations under 200,000, except that the total amount of
such funds made available for such operating assistance and
for urbanized areas for preventive maintenance activities
that become eligible for capital assistance under section
5307 on the date of the enactment of the Building Efficient
Surface Transportation and Equity Act of 1998 may not exceed
$400,000,000 for any fiscal year.''.
SEC. 327. APPORTIONMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FIXED GUIDEWAY
MODERNIZATION.
(a) Distribution.--Section 5337(a) is amended to read as
follows:
``(a) Distribution.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
apportion amounts made available for fixed guideway
modernization under section 5309 for each of fiscal years
1998 through 2003 as follows:
``(1) The first $497,700,000 shall be apportioned in the
following urbanized areas as follows:
``(A) Baltimore, $8,372,000.
``(B) Boston, $38,948,000.
``(C) Chicago/Northwestern Indiana, $78,169,000.
``(D) Cleveland, $9,509,500.
``(E) New Orleans, $1,730,588.
``(F) New York, $176,034,461.
``(G) Northeastern New Jersey, $50,604,653.
``(H) Philadelphia/Southern New Jersey, $58,924,764.
``(I) Pittsburgh, $13,662,463.
``(J) San Francisco, $33,989,571.
``(K) Southwestern Connecticut, $27,755,000.
``(2) The next $74,849,950 shall be apportioned as follows:
``(A) $4,849,950 to the Alaska Railroad for improvements to
its passenger operations.
``(B) Of the remaining $70,000,000--
``(i) 50 percent in the urbanized areas listed in paragraph
(1) as provided in section 5336(b)(2)(A); and
``(ii) 50 percent in other urbanized areas eligible for
assistance under section 5336(b)(2)(A) to which amounts were
apportioned under this section for fiscal year 1997, as
provided in section 5336(b)(2)(A) and subsection (e) of this
section.
``(3) The next $5,700,000 shall be apportioned in the
following urbanized areas as follows:
``(A) Pittsburgh, 61.76 percent.
``(B) Cleveland, 10.73 percent.
``(C) New Orleans, 5.79 percent.
``(D) 21.72 percent in urbanized areas to which paragraph
(2)(B)(ii) applies, as provided in section 5336(b)(2)(A) and
subsection (e) of this section.
``(4) The next $186,600,000 shall be apportioned in each
urbanized area to which paragraph (1) applies and in each
urbanized area to which paragraph (2)(B) applies, as provided
in section 5336(b)(2)(A) and subsection (e) of this section.
``(5) The next $140,000,000 shall be apportioned as
follows:
``(A) 65 percent in the urbanized areas listed in paragraph
(1) as provided in section 5336(b)(2)(A) and subsection (e)
of this section.
``(B) 35 percent to other urbanized areas eligible for
assistance under section 5336(b)(2)(A) of this title if the
areas contain fixed guideway systems placed in revenue
service at least 7 years before the fiscal year in which
amounts
[[Page H1966]]
are made available and in any urbanized area if, before the
first day of the fiscal year, the area satisfies the
Secretary that the area has modernization needs that cannot
adequately be met with amounts received under section
5336(b)(2)(A), as provided in section 5336(b)(2)(A) and
subsection (e) of this section.
``(6) The next $100,000,000 shall be apportioned as
follows:
``(A) 60 percent in the urbanized areas listed in paragraph
(1) as provided in section 5336(b)(2)(A) and subsection (e)
of this section.
``(B) 40 percent to urbanized areas to which paragraph
(5)(B) applies, as provided in section 5336(b)(2)(A) and
subsection (e) of this section.
``(7) Remaining amounts shall be apportioned as follows:
``(A) 50 percent in the urbanized areas listed in paragraph
(1) as provided in section 5336(b)(2)(A) and subsection (e)
of this section.
``(B) 50 percent to urbanized areas to which paragraph
(5)(B) applies, as provided in section 5336(b)(2)(A) and
subsection (e) of this section.''.
(b) Route Segments To Be Included in Apportionment
Formulas.--Section 5337 is further amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(e) Route Segments To Be Included in Apportionment
Formulas.--(1) Amounts apportioned under paragraphs (2)(B),
(3), and (4) of subsection (a) shall have attributable to
each urbanized area only the number of fixed guideway revenue
miles of service and number of fixed guideway route miles for
segments of fixed guideway systems used to determine
apportionments for fiscal year 1997.
``(2) Amounts apportioned under paragraphs (5) through (7)
of subsection (a) shall have attributable to each urbanized
area only the number of fixed guideway revenue miles of
service and number of fixed guideway route-miles for segments
of fixed guideway systems placed in revenue service at least
7 years before the fiscal year in which amounts are made
available.''.
SEC. 328. AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 5338 is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 5338. Authorizations
``(a) Formula Grants.--
``(1) From the trust fund.--There shall be available from
the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to carry
out sections 5307, 5310, and 5311--
``(A) $2,697,600,000 for fiscal year 1998;
``(B) $3,213,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(C) $3,553,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through
2003.
``(2) From the general fund.--In addition to amounts made
available under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out sections 5307 and 5311--
``(A) $290,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
``(B) $68,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.
``(3) Allocation of funds.--Of the aggregate of amounts
made available by and appropriated under this subsection for
a fiscal year--
``(A) 2.4 percent shall be available to provide
transportation services to elderly individuals and
individuals with disabilities under section 5310;
``(B) 5.37 percent shall be available to provide financial
assistance for other than urbanized areas under section 5311;
and
``(C) 92.23 percent shall be available to provide financial
assistance for urbanized areas under section 5307.
``(b) Capital Program Grants and Loans.--There shall be
available from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust
Fund to carry out section 5309:
``(1) $2,197,000,000 for fiscal year 1998.
``(2) $2,412,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.
``(3) $2,613,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through
2003.
``(c) Planning.--
``(1) From the trust fund.--There shall be available from
the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to carry
out sections 5303, 5304, 5305, and 5313(b) $54,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
``(2) From the general fund.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out sections 5303, 5304, 5305, and
5313(b)--
``(A) $48,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
``(B) $52,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.
``(3) Allocation of funds.--Of the funds made available by
or appropriated under this subsection for a fiscal year--
``(A) 82.72 percent shall be available for metropolitan
planning under sections 5303, 5304, and 5305; and
``(B) 17.28 percent shall be available for State planning
under section 5313(b).
``(d) Research.--
``(1) From the trust fund.--There shall be available from
the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to carry
out sections 5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a), 5314, 5315, and 5322
$38,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
``(2) From the general fund.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out sections 5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a),
5314, 5315, and 5322 $38,000,000 for each of fiscal years
1998 and 1999.
``(3) Allocation of funds.--Of the funds made available by
or appropriated under this subsection for a fiscal year--
``(A) not less than $5,250,000 shall be available for
providing rural transportation assistance under section
5311(b)(2);
``(B) not less than $8,250,000 shall be available for
carrying out transit cooperative research programs under
section 5313(a);
``(C) not less than $3,000,000 shall be available to carry
out programs under the National Transit Institute under
section 5315; and
``(D) the remainder shall be available for carrying out
national planning and research programs under sections
5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a), 5314, and 5322.
``(e) University Transportation Research.--
``(1) From the trust fund.--There shall be available from
the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to carry
out section 5505 $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000
through 2003.
``(2) From the general fund.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out section 5505 $6,000,000 per fiscal
year for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
``(f) Administration.--
``(1) From the trust fund.--There shall be available from
the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund for
administrative expenses to carry out section 5334 $52,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
``(2) From the general fund.--There is authorized to be
appropriated for administrative expenses to carry out section
5334--
``(A) $46,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
``(B) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.
``(g) Grants as Contractual Obligations.--
``(1) Grants financed from the highway trust fund.--A grant
or contract approved by the Secretary, that is financed with
amounts made available under subsection (a)(1), (b), (c)(1),
(d)(1), (e)(1), or (f)(1) is a contractual obligation of the
United States Government to pay the Government's share of the
cost of the project.
``(2) Grants financed from general funds.--A grant or
contract, approved by the Secretary, that is financed with
amounts made available under subsection (a)(2), (c)(2),
(d)(2), (e)(2), or (f)(2) is a contractual obligation of the
Government to pay the Government's share of the cost of the
project only to the extent amounts are provided in advance in
an appropriations law.
``(h) Availability of Amounts.--Amounts made available by
or appropriated under subsections (a) through (e) shall
remain available until expended.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Chapter 53 is amended as
follows:
(1) In sections 5303(h)(1), 5303(h)(2)(A), and
5303(h)(3)(A) by striking ``5338(g)(1)'' and inserting
``5338(c)(3)(A)''.
(2) In section 5303(h)(1) by striking ``-5306'' and
inserting ``and 5305''.
(3) In section 5303(h)(4) by striking ``5338(g)'' and
inserting ``5338(c)(3)(A)''.
(4) In section 5309(f)(4), as redesignated by section
308(i)(1)(B) of this Act, by striking ``5338(a)'' and
inserting ``5338(b)''.
(5) In section 5310(b) by striking ``5338(a)'' and
inserting ``5338(a)(3)(A)''.
(6) In section 5311(c) by striking ``5338(a)'' and
inserting ``5338(a)(3)(B)''.
(7) In section 5313(a)(1) by striking ``section
5338(g)(3)'' and inserting ``sections 5338(d)(3)(B) and
5338(d)(3)(D)''.
(8) In section 5313(b)(1) by striking ``5338(g)(3)'' and
inserting ``5338(c)(3)(B)''.
(9) In section 5314(a)(1) by striking ``5338(g)(4)'' and
inserting ``5338(d)(3)(D)''.
(10) In section 5318(d) by striking ``5338(j)(5)'' and
inserting ``5309(m)(3)(B)''.
(11) In section 5333(b) by striking ``5338(j)(5)'' each
place it appears and inserting ``5338(b)''.
(12) In section 5336(a) by striking ``5338(f)'' and
inserting ``5338(a)(3)(C)''.
(13) In section 5336(e)(1) by striking ``5338(f)'' and
inserting ``5338(a)(3)(C)''.
SEC. 329. OBLIGATION CEILING.
(a) Capital Program Grants and Loans.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the total of all obligations from
amounts made available from the Mass Transit Account of the
Highway Trust Fund by section 5338(b) of title 49, United
States Code, shall not exceed--
(1) $2,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1998;
(2) $2,412,000,000 in fiscal year 1999; and
(3) $2,613,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2000 through
2003.
(b) Formula Grants, Planning, Research, Administration, and
Studies.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
total of all obligations from amounts made available from the
Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund by subsections
(a), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of section 5338 of title 49,
United States Code, and sections 331 and 332 of this Act
shall not exceed--
(1) $2,260,000,000 in fiscal year 1998;
(2) $3,213,000,000 in fiscal year 1999; and
(3) $3,703,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2000 through
2003.
SEC. 330. ACCESS TO JOBS CHALLENGE GRANT PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) General Authority.--The Secretary may make grants under
this section to assist States, local governmental
authorities, and nonprofit organizations in financing
transportation services designed to transport welfare
recipients to and from jobs and activities related to their
employment. The Secretary shall coordinate activities under
this section with related activities under programs of other
Federal departments and agencies.
(b) Grant Criteria.--In selecting applicants for grants
under this section, the Secretary shall consider the
following:
(1) The percentage of the population in the area to be
served that are welfare recipients.
(2) The need for additional services (including bicycling)
to transport welfare recipients to and from specified jobs,
training, and other employment support services, and the
extent to which the proposed services will address those
needs.
(3) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates
coordination with, and the financial commitment of, existing
transportation service providers and the extent to which the
applicant demonstrates coordination with the State agency or
department that administers the State program funded under
part A of title IV of the Social Security Act.
(4) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates maximum
utilization of existing transportation service providers and
expands existing transit networks or hours of service or
both.
[[Page H1967]]
(5) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates an
innovative approach that is responsive to identified service
needs.
(6) The extent to which the applicant presents a
comprehensive approach to addressing the needs of welfare
recipients and identifies long-term financing strategies to
support the services under this section.
(c) Eligible Projects.--The Secretary may make grants under
this section for--
(1) capital projects and to finance operating costs of
equipment, facilities, and associated capital maintenance
items related to providing access to jobs under this section;
(2) promoting the use of transit by workers with
nontraditional work schedules;
(3) promoting the use by appropriate agencies of transit
vouchers for welfare recipients under specific terms and
conditions developed by the Secretary; and
(4) promoting the use of employer-provided transportation
including the transit pass benefit program under subsections
(a) and (f) of section 132 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
No planning or coordination activities are eligible for
assistance under this section.
(d) Competitive Grant Selection.--The Secretary shall
conduct a national solicitation for applications for grants
under this section. Grantees shall be selected on a
competitive basis. The Secretary shall select not more than
10 demonstration projects for the pilot program, including 6
projects from urbanized areas with populations of at least
200,000, 2 projects from urbanized areas with populations
less than 200,000, and 2 projects from other than urbanized
areas.
(e) Federal Share of Costs.--The Federal share of costs
under this section shall be provided from funds appropriated
to carry out this section. The Federal share of the costs for
a project under this section shall not exceed 50 percent of
the net project cost. The remainder shall be provided in cash
from sources other than revenues from providing mass
transportation. Funds appropriated to a Federal department or
agency (other than the Department of Transportation) and
eligible to be used for transportation may be used toward the
nongovernment share payable on a project under this section.
(f) Planning Requirements.--The requirements of sections
5303 through 5306 of title 49, United States Code, apply to
grants made under this section. Applications must reflect
coordination with and the approval of affected transit grant
recipients and the projects financed must be part of a
coordinated public transit-human services transportation
planning process.
(g) Grant Requirements.--A grant under this section shall
be subject to all of the terms and conditions of grants made
under section 5307 of title 49, United States Code, and such
terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary.
(h) Program Evaluation.--
(1) Comptroller general.--Six months after the date of the
enactment of this Act and each 6 months thereafter, the
Comptroller General shall conduct a study to evaluate the
access to jobs program conducted under this section and
transmit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate the results of the study.
(2) Department of transportation.--The Secretary shall
conduct a study to evaluate the access to jobs program
conducted under this section and transmit to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs of the Senate the results of the study within 2
years of the date of the enactment of this Act.
(i) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Capital project and urbanized area.--The terms
``capital project'' and ``urbanized area'' have the meaning
such terms have under section 5302 of title 49, United States
Code.
(2) Existing transportation service providers.--The term
``existing transportation service providers'' means mass
transportation operators and governmental agencies and
nonprofit organizations that receive assistance from Federal,
State, or local sources for nonemergency transportation
services.
(3) Welfare recipient.--The term ``welfare recipient''
means an individual who receives or received aid or
assistance under a State program funded under part A of title
IV of the Social Security Act (whether in effect before or
after the effective date of the amendments made by title I of
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996) at any time during the 3-year
period ending on the date the applicant applies for a grant
under this section.
(j) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $42,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal
years 1998 through 2003. Such sums shall remain available
until expended.
SEC. 331. ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
EXTENSION ACT OF 1997.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary shall ensure that the total apportionments
and allocations made to a designated grant recipient under
section 5338 of this Act for fiscal year 1998 shall be
reduced by the amount apportioned to such designated
recipient pursuant to section 8 of the Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 1997 (111 Stat. 2559).
(b) Fixed Guideway Modernization Adjustment.--In making the
apportionments described in subsection (a), the Secretary
shall adjust the amount apportioned to each urbanized area
for fixed guideway modernization for fiscal year 1998 to
reflect the method for apportioning funds in section 5337(a).
SEC. 332. PROJECTS FOR NEW FIXED GUIDEWAY SYSTEMS AND
EXTENSIONS TO EXISTING SYSTEMS.
(a) Final Design and Construction.--The following projects
are authorized for final design and construction for fiscal
years 1998 through 2003 under section 5309(m)(1)(B) of title
49, United States Code:
(1) Atlanta--Athens Commuter Rail.
(2) Atlanta--Griffin Commuter Rail.
(3) Atlanta--North Line Extension.
(4) Austin--NW/North Central/SE--Airport LRT.
(5) Baltimore--Central LRT Extension to Glen Burnie.
(6) Boston--Massport Airport Intermodal Transit Connector.
(7) Boston--North Shore Blue Line Extension to Beverly.
(8) Charlotte--South Corridor Transitway.
(9) Chicago--Navy Pier-McCormick Place Busway.
(10) Chicago--North Central Upgrade Commuter Rail.
(11) Chicago--Ravenswood Line Extension.
(12) Chicago--Southwest Extension.
(13) Chicago--West Line Expansion.
(14) Cleveland--Akron-Canton Commuter Rail.
(15) Cleveland--Berea Metroline Extension.
(16) Cleveland--Blue Line Extension.
(17) Cleveland--Euclid Corridor Extension.
(18) Cleveland--I-90 Corridor to Ashtabula County.
(19) Cleveland--Waterfront Line Extension.
(20) Dallas--North Central Extension.
(21) Dallas--Ft. Worth RAILTRAN (Phase II).
(22) Denver--East Corridor (Airport).
(23) Denver--Southeast LRT (I-25 between 6th & Lincoln).
(24) Denver--Southwest LRT.
(25) Denver--West Corridor LRT.
(26) East St. Louis-St. Clair County--Mid-America Airport
Corridor.
(27) Ft. Lauderdale-West Palm Beach-Miami Tri-County
Commuter Rail.
(28) Galveston--Trolley Extension.
(29) Hartford--Griffin Line.
(30) Hollis--Ketchikan Ferry.
(31) Houston--Regional Bus Plan--Phase I.
(32) Kansas City--I-35 Commuter Rail.
(33) Kansas City--Southtown Corridor.
(34) Las Vegas Corridor.
(35) Little Rock--River Rail.
(36) Los Angeles--Metrolink San Bernadino Line.
(37) Los Angeles--MOS-3.
(38) Los Angeles--Metrolink (Union Station-Fullerton).
(39) Louisville--Jefferson County Corridor.
(40) MARC--Commuter Rail Improvements.
(41) Maryland Light Rail Double Track.
(42) Memphis--Medical Center Extension.
(43) Miami--East-West Corridor.
(44) Miami--North 27th Avenue Corridor.
(45) Miami--South Busway Extension.
(46) Milwaukee--East-West Corridor.
(47) Monterey County Commuter Rail.
(48) Nashua, NH--Lowell, MA Commuter Rail.
(49) Nashville--Commuter Rail.
(50) New Orleans--Canal Streetcar.
(51) New York--8th Avenue Subway Connector.
(52) New York--Brooklyn--Staten Island Ferry.
(53) New York--Long Island Railroad East Side Access.
(54) New York--Staten Island Ferry--Whitehall Intermodal
Terminal.
(55) New York Susquehanna and Western Commuter Rail.
(56) New Jersey Urban Core.
(57) Norfolk--Virginia Beach Corridor.
(58) Oklahoma City--MAPS Link.
(59) Orange County--Fullerton--Irvine Corridor.
(60) Orlando--I-4 Central Florida Light Rail System.
(61) Philadelphia--Schuykill Valley Metro.
(62) Phoenix--Fixed Guideway.
(63) Colorado--Roaring Fork Valley Rail.
(64) Pittsburgh Airborne Shuttle System.
(65) Pittsburgh--MLK Busway Extension.
(66) Portland--South-North Corridor.
(67) Portland--Westside-Hillsboro Corridor.
(68) Raleigh-Durham--Regional Transit Plan.
(69) Sacramento--Folsom Extension.
(70) Sacramento--Placer County Corridor.
(71) Sacramento--South Corridor.
(72) Salt Lake City--Light Rail (Airport to University of
Utah).
(73) Salt Lake City--Ogden-Provo Commuter Rail.
(74) Salt Lake City--South LRT.
(75) San Diego--Mid-Coast LRT Corridor.
(76) San Diego--Mission Valley East Corridor.
(77) San Diego--Oceanside--Escondido Corridor.
(78) San Francisco--BART to San Francisco International
Airport Extension.
(79) San Francisco--Bayshore Corridor.
(80) San Jose--Tasman Corridor Light Rail.
(81) San Juan--Tren Urbano.
(82) San Juan--Tren Urbano Extension to Minellas.
(83) Santa Cruz--Fixed Guideway.
(84) Seattle--Southworth High Speed Ferry.
(85) Seattle--Sound Move Corridor.
(86) South Boston--Piers Transitway.
(87) St. Louis--Cross County Corridor.
(88) Stockton--Altamont Commuter Rail.
(89) Tampa Bay--Regional Rail.
(90) Twin Cities--Northstar Commuter Rail (Northtown Hub,
Anoka County--St. Cloud).
(91) Twin Cities--Transitways Corridors.
(92) Washington--Richmond Rail Corridor Improvements.
(93) Washington, D.C.--Dulles Corridor Extension.
(94) Washington, D.C.--Largo Extension.
(95) West Trenton Line (West Trenton-Newark).
(96) Westlake--Commuter Rail Link.
(b) Alternatives Analysis and Preliminary Engineering.--The
following projects are authorized for alternatives analysis
and preliminary engineering for fiscal years 1998 through
[[Page H1968]]
2003 under section 5309(m)(1)(B) of title 49, United States
Code:
(1) Albuquerque--High Capacity Corridor.
(2) Atlanta--Georgia 400 Multimodal Corridor.
(3) Atlanta--MARTA Extension (S. DeKalb-Lindbergh).
(4) Atlanta--MARTA I-285 Transit Corridor.
(5) Atlanta--MARTA Marietta-Lawrenceville Corridor.
(6) Atlanta--MARTA South DeKalb Comprehensive Transit
Program.
(7) Baltimore--Metropolitan Rail Corridor.
(8) Baltimore--People Mover.
(9) Bergen County Cross--County Light Rail.
(10) Birmingham Transit Corridor.
(11) Boston--Urban Ring.
(12) Charleston--Monobeam.
(13) Chicago--Cominsky Park Station.
(14) Chicago--Inner Circumferential Commuter Rail.
(15) Cumberland/Dauphin County Corridor 1 Commuter Rail.
(16) Dallas--DART LRT Extensions.
(17) Dallas--Las Colinas Corridor.
(18) Dayton--Regional Riverfront Corridor.
(19) El Paso--International Fixed Guideway (El Paso-
Juarez).
(20) Fremont--South Bay Corridor.
(21) Georgetown Branch (Bethesda-Silver Spring).
(22) Houston--Advanced Transit Program.
(23) Jacksonville--Fixed Guideway Corridor.
(24) Kenosha-Racine--Milwaukee Rail Extension.
(25) Knoxville--Electric Transit.
(26) Lorain--Cleveland Commuter Rail.
(27) Los Angeles--MOS-4 East Side Extension (II).
(28) Los Angeles--MOS-4 San Fernando Valley East-West.
(29) Los Angeles--LOSSAN (Del Mar-San Diego).
(30) Maine High Speed Ferry Service.
(31) Maryland Route 5 Corridor.
(32) Memphis--Regional Rail Plan.
(33) Miami--Kendall Corridor.
(34) Miami--Northeast Corridor.
(35) Miami--Palmetto Metrorail.
(36) New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor.
(37) New Orleans--Airport--CBD Commuter Rail.
(38) New Orleans--Desire Streetcar.
(39) New York--Astoria--East Elmhurst Extension.
(40) New York--Broadway--Lafayette & Bleecker St Transfer.
(41) New York--Brooklyn--Manhattan Access.
(42) New York--Lower Manhattan Access.
(43) New York--Manhattan East Side Link.
(44) New York--Midtown West Intermodal Terminal.
(45) New York--Nassau Hub.
(46) New York--North Shore Railroad.
(47) New York--Queens West Light Rail Link.
(48) New York--St. George's Ferry Intermodal Terminal.
(49) Newburgh--LRT System.
(50) North Front Range Corridor.
(51) Northeast Indianapolis Corridor.
(52) Oakland Airport--BART Connector.
(53) Philadelphia--Broad Street Line Extension.
(54) Philadelphia--Cross County Metro.
(55) Philadelphia--Lower Marion Township.
(56) Pinellas County--Mobility Initiative Project.
(57) Pittsburgh--Stage II Light Rail Reconstruction.
(58) Redlands--San Bernardino Transportation Corridor.
(59) Riverside--Perris rail passenger service.
(60) Salt Lake City--Draper Light Rail Extension.
(61) Salt Lake City--West Jordan Light Rail Extension.
(62) San Francisco--CalTrain Extension to Hollister.
(63) Scranton--Laurel Line Intermodal Corridor.
(64) SEATAC--Personal Rapid Transit.
(65) Toledo--CBD to Zoo.
(66) Union Township Station (Raritan Valley Line).
(67) Washington County Corridor (Hastings-St. Paul).
(68) Washington, D.C.--Georgetown-Ft. Lincoln.
(69) Williamsburg--Newport News-Hampton LRT.
(70) Cincinnati/N. Kentucky--Northeast Corridor.
(71) Northeast Ohio--commuter rail.
(c) Effect of Authorization.--
(1) In general.--Projects authorized by subsection (a) for
final design and construction are also authorized for
alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering.
(2) Fixed guideway authorization.--The project authorized
by subsection (a)(3) includes an additional 28 rapid rail
cars and project scope changes from amounts authorized by the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
(3) Intermodal center authorization.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Huntington, West Virginia
Intermodal Facility project is eligible for funding under
section 5309(m)(1)(C) of title 49, United States Code.
(d) New Jersey Urban Core Project.--
(1) Allocations.--Section 3031(a) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2122) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Allocations.--
``(A) Rail connection between penn station newark and broad
street station, newark.--Of the amounts made available for
the New Jersey Urban Core Project under section 5309(m)(1)(B)
of title 49, United States Code, for fiscal years 1998
through 2003, the Secretary shall set aside 10 percent, but
not more than $5,000,000, per fiscal year for preliminary
engineering, design, and construction of the rail connection
between Penn Station, Newark and Broad Street Station,
Newark.
``(B) Newark--newark international airport--elizabeth
transit link.--Of the amounts made available for the New
Jersey Urban Core Project under section 5309(m)(1)(B) of
title 49, United States Code, for fiscal years 1998 through
2003, the Secretary, after making the set aside under
subparagraph (A), shall set aside 10 percent, but not more
than $5,000,000, per fiscal year for preliminary engineering,
design, and construction of the Newark--Newark International
Airport--Elizabeth Transit Link, including construction of
the auxiliary New Jersey Transit station, described in
subsection (d).
``(C) Light rail connection and alignment within and
serving the city of elizabeth.--Of amounts made available for
the New Jersey Urban Core Project under section 5309(m)(1)(B)
of title 49, United States Code, for fiscal years 1998
through 2003, the Secretary, after making the set-aside under
subparagraphs (A) and (B), shall set aside 10 percent but not
more than $5,000,000 per fiscal year for preliminary
engineering, design, and construction of the light rail
connection and alignment within and serving the city of
Elizabeth as described in subsection (d).''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 3031(c) of such Act is
amended--
(A) by striking ``section 3(i) of the Federal Transit Act
(relating to criteria for new starts)'' and inserting
``section 5309(e) of title 49, United States Code,''; and
(B) by striking ``; except'' and all that follows through
``such element''.
(3) Elements of new jersey urban core project.--Section
3031(d) of such Act is amended--
(A) by inserting after ``Secaucus Transfer'' the following:
``(including relocation and construction of the Bergen County
and Pascack Valley Rail Lines and the relocation of the Main/
Bergen Connection with construction of a rail station and
associated components to and at the contiguous New Jersey
Meadowlands Sports Complex)'';
(B) by striking ``, Newark-Newark International Airport-
Elizabeth Transit Link'' and inserting the following:
``(including a connection from the Vince Lombardi Station to
Saddlebrook), Newark-Newark International Airport-Elizabeth
Transit Link (including construction of an auxiliary New
Jersey Light Rail Transit station directly connected to and
integrated with the Amtrak Northeast Corridor Station at
Newark International Airport, providing access from the
Newark-Newark International Airport-Elizabeth Light Rail
Transit Link to the Newark International Airport)''; and
(C) by inserting after ``New York Penn Station Concourse,''
the following: ``the restoration of commuter rail service in
Lakewood to Freehold to Matawan or Jamesburg, New Jersey, as
described in section 3035(p) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2131), a
light rail extension of the Newark-Newark International
Airport-Elizabeth Light Rail Transit Link from Elizabeth, New
Jersey, to the towns of Cranford, Westfield, Fanwood, and
Plainfield in Union County, New Jersey, and any appropriate
light rail connections and alignments within the city of
Elizabeth to be determined by the city of Elizabeth and the
New Jersey Department of Transportation (and which shall
include connecting midtown Elizabeth to Route 1 Park and
Ride, the Elizabeth Car House Museum, Division Street, Singer
Place, Ferry Terminal, Jersey Gardens Mall, Elizabeth Port to
Lot D at Newark Airport) and any appropriate fixed guideway
system in Passaic County,''.
SEC. 333. PROJECTS FOR BUS AND BUS-RELATED FACILITIES.
Of the amounts made available to carry out section
5309(m)(1)(C) for each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the
Secretary shall make funds available for the following
projects in not less than the amounts specified for the
fiscal year:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1999 (in FY 2000 (in
Project millions) millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Albuquerque, NM buses................... 1.250 1.250
2. Alexandria, VA bus maintenance facility. 1.000 1.000
3. Alexandria, VA King Street Station 1.100 0.000
access.......................................
4. Altoona, PA Metro Transit Authority 0.842 0.842
buses and transit system improvements........
5. Altoona, PA Metro Transit Authority 0.080 0.000
Logan Valley Mall Suburban Transfer Center...
6. DAltoona, PA Metro Transit Authority 0.424 0.000
Transit Center improvements..................
7. Arkansas Highway and Transit Department 0.200 0.000
buses........................................
8. DArmstrong County-Mid County, PA bus 0.150 0.150
facilities and buses.........................
9. DAtlanta, GA MARTA buses................ 9.000 13.500
10. Austin, TX buses........................ 1.250 1.250
11. Babylon, NY Intermodal Center........... 1.250 1.250
[[Page H1969]]
12. Birmingham-Jefferson County, AL buses... 1.250 1.250
13. Boulder/Denver, CO RTD buses............ 0.625 0.625
14. Bradford County, Endless Mountain 1.000 0.000
Transportation Authority buses...............
15. Brookhaven Town, NY elderly and disabled 0.225 0.000
buses and vans...............................
16. Brooklyn-Staten Island, NY Mobility 0.800 0.000
Enhancement buses............................
17. Broward County, FL buses................ 1.000 0.000
18. Buffalo, NY Auditorium Intermodal Center 2.000 2.000
19. Buffalo, NY Crossroads Intermodal 1.000 0.000
Station......................................
20. Cambria County, PA bus facilities and 0.575 0.575
buses........................................
21. Centre Area, PA Transportation Authority 1.250 1.250
buses........................................
22. Chambersburg, PA Transit Authority buses 0.300 0.000
23. DChambersburg, PA Transit Authority 1.000 0.000
Intermodal Center............................
24. Chatham, GA Downtown Transfer Center, 1.250 1.250
Multimodal Circulator and Southside Transit
Center.......................................
25. Chester County, PA Paoli Transportation 1.000 1.000
Center.......................................
26. Clark County, NV Regional Transportation 1.250 1.250
Commission buses.............................
27. Cleveland, OH Triskett Garage bus 0.625 0.625
maintenance facility.........................
28. Crawford Area, PA Transportation buses.. 0.500 0.000
29. Culver City, CA CityBus buses........... 1.250 1.250
30. Davis, CA Unitrans transit maintenance 0.625 0.625
facility.....................................
31. Dayton, OH Multimodal Transportation 0.625 0.625
Center.......................................
32. Daytona, FL Intermodal Center........... 2.500 2.500
33. Duluth, MN Transit Authority community 1.000 1.000
circulation vehicles.........................
34. Duluth, MN Transit Authority intelligent 0.500 0.500
transportation systems.......................
35. Duluth, MN Transit Authority Transit Hub 0.500 0.500
36. Dutchess County, NY Loop System buses... 0.521 0.521
37. East Hampton, NY elderly and disabled 0.100 0.000
buses and vans...............................
38. Erie, PA Metropolitan Transit Authority 1.000 1.000
buses........................................
39. Everett, WA Multimodal Transportation 1.950 1.950
Center.......................................
40. Fayette County, PA Intermodal Facilities 1.270 1.270
and buses....................................
41. Fayetteville, AR University of Arkansas 0.500 0.000
Transit System buses.........................
42. Fort Dodge, IA Intermodal Facility 0.885 0.885
(Phase II)...................................
43. Gary, IN Transit Consortium buses....... 1.250 1.250
44. Grant County, WA buses and vans......... 0.600 0.000
45. Greensboro, NC Multimodal Center........ 3.340 3.339
46. Greensboro, NC Transit Authority buses.. 1.500 1.500
47. Greensboro, NC Transit Authority small 0.321 0.000
buses and vans...............................
48. Hartford, CT Transportation Access 0.800 0.000
Project......................................
49. Healdsburg, CA Intermodal Facility...... 1.000 1.000
50. Honolulu, HI bus facility and buses..... 2.250 2.250
51. Hot Springs, AR Transportation Depot and 0.560 0.560
Plaza........................................
52. Humboldt, CA Intermodal Facility........ 1.000 0.000
53. Huntington, WV Intermodal Facility...... 8.000 12.000
54. Illinois statewide buses and bus-related 6.800 8.200
equipment....................................
55. Indianapolis, IN buses.................. 5.000 5.000
56. Iowa/Illinois Transit Consortium bus 1.000 1.000
safety and security..........................
57. Ithaca, NY TCAT bus technology 1.250 1.250
improvements.................................
58. Lackawanna County, PA Transit System 0.600 0.600
buses........................................
59. Lakeland, FL Citrus Connection transit 1.250 1.250
vehicles and related equipment...............
60. Lane County, OR Bus Rapid Transit....... 4.400 4.400
61. Lansing, MI CATA bus technology 0.600 0.000
improvements.................................
62. Little Rock, AR Central Arkansas Transit 0.300 0.000
buses........................................
63. Livermore, CA automatic vehicle locator. 1.000 1.000
64. Long Island, NY CNG transit vehicles and 1.250 1.250
facilities...................................
65. Los Angeles County, CA Foothill Transit 1.625 1.625
buses........................................
66. Los Angeles County, CA MTOC buses....... 1.000 1.000
67. Los Angeles, CA San Fernando Valley 0.300 0.000
smart shuttle buses..........................
68. Los Angeles, CA Union Station Gateway 1.250 1.250
Intermodal Transit Center....................
69. Louisiana statewide bus facilities and 8.000 12.000
buses........................................
70. Maryland statewide bus facilities and 7.000 11.500
buses........................................
71. Mercer County, PA buses................. 0.750 0.000
72. Miami Beach, FL Electric Shuttle Service 0.750 0.750
73. Miami-Dade, FL buses.................... 1.750 1.750
74. Michigan statewide buses................ 10.000 13.500
75. Milwaukee County, WI buses.............. 4.000 6.000
76. Mineola/Hicksville, NY LIRR Intermodal 1.250 1.250
Centers......................................
77. Mobile, AL GM&O Intermodal Facility..... 0.750 0.000
78. Modesto, CA bus maintenance facility.... 0.625 0.625
79. Monroe County, PA Transportation 1.000 0.000
Authority buses..............................
80. Monterey, CA Monterey-Salinas buses..... 0.625 0.625
81. Morango Basin, CA Transit Authority bus 0.650 0.000
facility.....................................
82. New Haven, CT bus facility.............. 2.250 2.250
83. New Jersey Transit jitney shuttle buses. 1.750 1.750
84. Newark, NJ Morris & Essex Station access 1.250 1.250
and buses....................................
85. Northstar Corridor, MN Intermodal 6.000 10.000
Facilities and buses.........................
86. Norwalk, CA transit facility............ 0.500 0.500
87. Norwich, CT buses....................... 2.250 2.250
88. Ogden, UT Intermodal Center............. 0.800 0.800
89. Oklahoma statewide bus facilities and 5.000 5.000
buses........................................
90. Orlando, FL Downtown Intermodal Facility 2.500 2.500
91. Palm Springs, CA fuel cell buses........ 1.000 1.000
92. Perris, CA bus maintenance facility..... 1.250 1.250
93. Philadelphia, PA Frankford 5.000 5.000
Transportation Center........................
94. Philadelphia, PA Intermodal 30th Street 1.250 1.250
Station......................................
95. Portland, OR Tri-Met buses.............. 1.750 1.750
96. Pritchard, AL bus transfer facility..... 0.500 0.000
97. Reading, PA BARTA Intermodal 1.750 1.750
Transportation Facility......................
[[Page H1970]]
98. Red Rose, PA Transit Bus Terminal....... 1.000 0.000
99. Richmond, VA GRTC bus maintenance 1.250 1.250
facility.....................................
100. Riverhead, NY elderly and disabled buses 0.125 0.000
and vans.....................................
101. Robinson, PA Towne Center Intermodal 1.500 1.500
Facility.....................................
102. Rome, NY Intermodal Center.............. 0.400 0.000
103. Sacramento, CA CNG buses................ 1.000 0.000
104. San Francisco, CA Islais Creek 1.250 1.250
Maintenance Facility.........................
105. San Juan, Puerto Rico Intermodal access. 0.600 0.600
106. Santa Clarita, CA facilities and buses.. 1.250 1.250
107. Santa Cruz, CA bus facility............. 0.625 0.625
108. Santa Rosa/Cotati, CA Intermodal 0.750 0.750
Transportation Facilities....................
109. Seattle, WA Intermodal Transportation 1.250 1.250
Terminal.....................................
110. Shelter Island, NY elderly and disabled 0.100 0.000
buses and vans...............................
111. Smithtown, NY elderly and disabled buses 0.125 0.000
and vans.....................................
112. Somerset County, PA bus facilities and 0.175 0.175
buses........................................
113. South Amboy, NJ Regional Intermodal 1.250 1.250
Transportation Initiative....................
114. South Bend, IN Urban Intermodal 1.250 1.250
Transportation Facility......................
115. South Carolina statewide Virtual Transit 1.220 1.220
Enterprise...................................
116. South Dakota statewide bus facilities 1.500 1.500
and buses....................................
117. Southampton, NY elderly and disabled 0.125 0.000
buses and vans...............................
118. Southold, NY elderly and disabled buses 0.100 0.000
and vans.....................................
119. Springfield, MA Union Station........... 1.250 1.250
120. St. Louis, MO Bi-state Intermodal Center 1.250 1.250
121. Stapleton, CO Intermodal Center......... 1.250 1.250
122. Suffolk County, NY elderly and disabled 0.100 0.000
buses and vans...............................
123. Texas statewide small urban and rural 4.000 4.500
buses........................................
124. Towamencin Township, PA Intermodal Bus 1.500 1.500
Transportation Center........................
125. Tuscaloosa, AL Intermodal Center........ 1.000 0.000
126. Tuscon, AZ Intermodal Center............ 1.250 1.250
127. Ukiah, CA Transportation Center......... 0.500 0.000
128. Utah Transit Authority, UT Intermodal 1.500 1.500
Facilities...................................
129. Utah Transit Authority/Park City 6.500 6.500
Transit, UT buses............................
130. Utica, NY Union Station................. 2.100 2.100
131. Utica and Rome, NY bus facilities and 0.500 0.000
buses........................................
132. Washington County, PA Intermodal 0.630 0.630
Facilities...................................
133. Washington, D.C. Intermodal 2.500 2.500
Transportation Center........................
134. Washoe County, NV transit improvements.. 1.250 1.250
135. Waterbury, CT bus facility.............. 2.250 2.250
136. West Virginia statewide Intermodal 5.000 5.000
Facility and buses...........................
137. Westchester County, NY Bee-Line transit 0.979 0.979
system fareboxes.............................
138. Westchester County, NY Bee-Line transit 1.000 1.000
system shuttle buses.........................
139. Westchester County, NY DOT articulated 1.250 1.250
buses........................................
140. Westmoreland County, PA Intermodal 0.200 0.200
Facility.....................................
141. Wilkes-Barre, PA Intermodal Facility.... 1.250 1.250
142. Williamsport, PA buses.................. 1.200 1.200
143. Windsor, CA Intermodal Facility......... 0.750 0.750
144. Wisconsin statewide bus facilities and 8.000 12.000
buses........................................
145. Woodland Hills, CA Warner Center 0.325 0.625
Transportation Hub...........................
146. Worcester, MA Union Station Intermodal 2.500 2.500
Transportation Center........................
147. Lynchburg, VA buses..................... 0.200 0.000
148. Harrisonburg, VA buses.................. 0.200 0.000
149. Roanoke, VA buses....................... 0.200 0.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 334. PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study
of the Secretary of Transportation's implementation of
project management oversight under section 5327 of title 49,
United States Code.
(b) Contents.--The study shall include the following:
(1) A listing of the amounts made available under section
5327(c)(1) of title 49, United States Code, for project
management oversight in each of fiscal years 1992 through
1997 and a description of the activities funded using such
amounts.
(2) A description of the major capital projects subject to
project management oversight, including the grant amounts for
such projects.
(3) A description of the contracts entered into for project
management oversight, including the scope of work and dollar
amounts of such contracts.
(4) A determination of whether the project management
oversight activities conducted by the Secretary are
authorized under section 5327.
(5) A description of any cost savings or program
improvements resulting from project management oversight.
(6) Recommendations regarding any changes that would
improve the project management oversight function.
(c) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall transmit
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report containing
the results of the study.
SEC. 335. PRIVATIZATION.
(a) Study.--Not later than 3 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with the Transportation Research Board of the
National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the effect
of privatization or contracting out mass transportation
operation and administrative functions on cost, availability
and level of service, efficiency, safety, quality of services
provided to transit-dependent populations, and employer-
employee relations.
(b) Terms of Agreement.--The agreement entered into in
subsection (a) shall provide that--
(1) the Transportation Research Board, in conducting the
study, consider the number of grant recipients that have
privatized or contracted out services, the size of the
population served by such grant recipients, the basis for
decisions regarding privatization or contracting out, and the
extent to which contracting out was affected by the
integration and coordination of resources of transit agencies
and other Federal agencies and programs; and
(2) the panel conducting the study shall include
representatives of transit agencies, employees of transit
agencies, private contractors, academic and policy analysts,
and other interested persons.
(c) Report.--Not later than 24 months after the date of
entry into the agreement under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate a report containing the results of the study.
(d) Funding.--There shall be available from the Mass
Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to carry out this
section $200,000 for fiscal year 1998, subject to the
obligation limitation set forth in section 329(b).
(e) Contractual Obligation.--Entry into an agreement to
carry out this section that is financed with amounts made
available under subsection (c) is a contractual obligation of
the United States to pay the Government's share of the cost
of the study.
SEC. 336. SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY.
(a) Study.--Not later than 3 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with the Transportation Research Board of the
National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the safety
issues attendant to transportation of school children to and
from school and school-related activities by various
transportation modes.
(b) Terms of Agreement.--The agreement entered into in
subsection (a) shall provide that--
(1) the Transportation Research Board, in conducting the
study, consider--
(A) in consultation with the National Transportation Safety
Board, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and other
relevant entities, available crash injury data, and if
unavailable or insufficient, recommend a new data collection
regimen and implementation guidelines; and
[[Page H1971]]
(B) vehicle design and driver training requirements,
routing, and operational factors that affect safety and other
factors that the Secretary considers appropriate; and
(2) the panel conducting the study shall include
representatives of highway safety organizations, school
transportation, mass transportation operators, employee
organizations, bicycling organizations, academic and policy
analysts, and other interested parties.
(c) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
entry into the agreement under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate a report containing the results of the study.
(d) Funding.--There shall be available from the Mass
Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to carry out this
section $200,000 for fiscal year 1998, subject to the
obligation limitation set forth in section 329(b).
(e) Contractual Obligation.--Entry into an agreement to
carry out this section that is financed with amounts made
available under subsection (c) is a contractual obligation of
the United States to pay the Government's share of the cost
of the study.
SEC. 337. URBANIZED AREA FORMULA STUDY.
(a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine whether the current formula for apportioning funds
to urbanized areas accurately reflects the transit needs of
the urbanized areas and if not whether any changes should be
made either to the formula or through some other mechanism to
reflect the fact that some urbanized areas with a population
between 50,000 and 200,000 have transit systems that carry
more passengers per mile or hour than the average of those
transit systems in urbanized areas with a population over
200,000.
(b) Report.--Not later than December 31, 1999, the
Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate a report on the results of the study conducted under
this section together with any proposed changes to the method
for apportioning funds to urbanized areas with a population
over 50,000.
SEC. 338. COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study
of Federal departments and agencies (other than the
Department of Transportation) that receive Federal financial
assistance for non-emergency transportation services.
(b) Contents.--In conducting the study, the Comptroller
General shall--
(1) identify each Federal department and agency (other than
the Department of Transportation) that has received Federal
financial assistance for non-emergency transportation
services in any of the 3 fiscal years preceding the date of
the enactment of this Act;
(2) identify the amount of such assistance received by each
Federal department and agency in such fiscal years; and
(3) identify the projects and activities funded using such
financial assistance.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall transmit
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report containing
the results of the study and any recommendations for enhanced
coordination between the Department of Transportation and
other Federal departments and agencies that provide funding
for non-emergency transportation.
SEC. 339. FINAL ASSEMBLY OF BUSES.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study
to review monitoring by the Federal Transit Administration of
preaward and post-delivery audits for compliance with the
requirements for final assembly of buses of section 5323(j)
of title 49, United States Code.
(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall transmit
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report containing
the results of the study.
TITLE IV--MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
SEC. 401. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE.
Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this
title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision of
law, the reference shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of title 49, United States Code.
SEC. 402. STATE GRANTS.
(a) Objective and Definitions.--Section 31101 is amended--
(1) by striking
``Sec. 31101. Definitions''
and inserting the following:
``Sec. 31101. Objective and definitions'';
(2) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) by inserting ``or gross vehicle weight'' after
``rating''; and
(B) by striking ``10,000 pounds'' and inserting ``10,001
pounds, whichever is greater'';
(3) in paragraph (1)(C) by inserting ``and transported in a
quantity requiring placarding under regulations prescribed by
the Secretary under section 5103'' after ``title'';
(4) by striking ``In this subchapter--'' and inserting the
following:
``(b) Definitions.--In this subchapter the following
definitions apply:''; and
(5) by inserting after the section heading the following:
``(a) Objective.--The objective of this subchapter is to
ensure that the Secretary, States, and other political
jurisdictions establish programs to improve motor carrier,
commercial motor vehicle, and driver safety to support a safe
and efficient transportation system by--
``(1) promoting safe for-hire and private transportation,
including transportation of passengers and hazardous
materials, to reduce the number and severity of commercial
motor vehicle crashes;
``(2) developing and enforcing effective, compatible, and
cost-beneficial motor carrier, commercial motor vehicle, and
driver safety regulations and practices, including
enforcement of State and local traffic safety laws and
regulations;
``(3) assessing and improving statewide program performance
by setting program outcome goals, improving problem
identification and countermeasures planning, designing
appropriate performance standards, measures, and benchmarks,
improving performance information, and monitoring program
effectiveness;
``(4) ensuring that drivers of commercial motor vehicles
and enforcement personnel obtain adequate training in safe
operational practices and regulatory requirements; and
``(5) advancing promising technologies and encouraging
adoption of safe operational practices.''.
(b) Performance-Based Grants and Hazardous Materials
Transportation Safety.--Section 31102 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``improving motor carrier safety and''
after ``programs for''; and
(B) by inserting ``, hazardous material transportation
safety,'' after ``commercial motor vehicle safety''; and
(2) in the first sentence of paragraph (b)(1)--
(A) by striking ``adopt and assume responsibility for
enforcing'' and inserting ``assume responsibility for
improving motor carrier safety and to adopt and enforce'';
and
(B) by inserting ``, hazardous material transportation
safety,'' after ``commercial motor vehicle safety''.
(c) Contents of State Plans.--Section 31102(b)(1) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (J) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)'';
(2) by striking subparagraphs (K), (L), (M), and (N) and
inserting the following:
``(K) ensures consistent, effective, and reasonable
sanctions;
``(L) ensures that the State agency will coordinate the
plan, data collection, and information systems with State
highway safety programs under title 23;
``(M) ensures participation in motor carrier, commercial
motor vehicle, and driver information systems by all
appropriate jurisdictions receiving funding under this
section;
``(N) implements performance-based activities by fiscal
year 2003;'';
(3) in subparagraph (O)--
(A) by inserting after ``activities'' the following: ``in
support of national priorities and performance goals,
including'';
(B) by striking ``to remove'' in clause (i) and inserting
``activities aimed at removing'';
(C) by striking ``to provide'' in clause (ii) and inserting
``activities aimed at providing''; and
(D) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
clause (ii); and
(E) by striking clauses (iii) and (iv) and inserting the
following:
``(iii) interdiction activities affecting the
transportation of controlled substances by commercial motor
vehicle drivers and training on appropriate strategies for
carrying out those interdiction activities;'';
(4) by striking subparagraph (P) and inserting the
following:
``(P) provides that the State will establish a program to
ensure the proper and timely correction of commercial motor
vehicle safety violations noted during an inspection carried
out with funds authorized under section 31104;'';
(5) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (Q)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(R) ensures that roadside inspections will be conducted
only at a distance that is adequate to protect the safety of
drivers and enforcement personnel.''.
(d) United States Government's Share of Costs.--The first
sentence of section 31103 is amended by inserting ``improve
commercial motor vehicle safety and'' before ``enforce''.
(e) Availability of Amounts.--Section 31104(a) of such
title is amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--The following amounts are made available
from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit
Account) for the Secretary of Transportation to incur
obligations to carry out section 31102:
``(1) Not more than $78,000,000 for fiscal year 1998.
``(2) Not more than $110,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.
``(3) Not more than $130,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2000 through 2003.''
(f) Conforming Amendment.--Section 31104(b) is amended by
striking ``(1)'' and by striking paragraph (2).
(g) Allocation Criteria and Eligibility.--Section 31104 is
further amended--
(1) by striking subsections (f) and (g) and inserting the
following:
``(f) Allocation Criteria and Eligibility.--
``(1) In general.--On October 1 of each fiscal year or as
soon after that date as practicable and after making the
deduction under subsection (e), the Secretary shall allocate
amounts made available to carry out section 31102 for such
fiscal year among the States with plans approved under
section 31102. Such allocation shall be made under such
criteria as the Secretary prescribes by regulation.
[[Page H1972]]
``(2) High-priority activities and projects.--The Secretary
may designate up to 5 percent of amounts available for
allocation under paragraph (1) to reimburse--
``(A) States for carrying out high priority activities and
projects that improve commercial motor vehicle safety and
compliance with commercial motor vehicle safety regulations,
including activities and projects that are national in scope,
increase public awareness and education, or demonstrate new
technologies; and
``(B) local governments and other persons that use trained
and qualified officers and employees, for carrying out
activities and projects described in subparagraph (A) in
coordination with State motor vehicle safety agencies.'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g);
(3) by striking subsection (i);
(4) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (h); and
(5) in the first sentence of subsection (h), as so
redesignated, by striking ``tolerance''.
(h) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 311 is amended by striking the item relating to
section 31101 and inserting the following:
``31101. Objective and definitions.''.
SEC. 403. INFORMATION SYSTEMS.
(a) In General.--Section 31106 is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 31106. Information systems
``(a) Information Systems and Data Analysis.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to the provisions of this
section, the Secretary shall establish and operate motor
carrier, commercial motor vehicle, and driver information
systems and data analysis programs to support safety
activities required under this title.
``(2) Coordination into network.--In cooperation with the
States, the information systems under this section shall be
coordinated into a network providing identification of motor
carriers and drivers, commercial motor vehicle registration
and license tracking, and motor carrier, commercial motor
vehicle, and driver safety performance data.
``(3) Data analysis capacity and programs.--The Secretary
shall develop and maintain under this section data analysis
capacity and programs that provide the means to--
``(A) identify and collect necessary motor carrier,
commercial motor vehicle, and driver data;
``(B) evaluate the safety fitness of motor carriers,
commercial motor vehicles, and drivers;
``(C) develop strategies to mitigate safety problems and to
measure the effectiveness of such strategies and related
programs;
``(D) determine the cost-effectiveness of Federal and State
safety and enforcement programs and other countermeasures;
and
``(E) adapt, improve, and incorporate other information and
information systems as the Secretary determines appropriate.
``(4) Standards.--To implement this section, the Secretary
may prescribe technical and operational standards to ensure--
``(A) uniform, timely, and accurate information collection
and reporting by the States and other entities;
``(B) uniform Federal, State, and local policies and
procedures; and
``(C) the reliability and availability of the information
to the Secretary, States, and others as the Secretary
determines appropriate.
``(b) Performance and Registration Information Program.--
``(1) Information clearinghouse.--The Secretary shall
include, as part of the information systems authorized by
this section, a program to establish and maintain a
clearinghouse and repository of information related to State
registration and licensing of commercial motor vehicles and
the motor carriers operating the vehicles. The clearinghouse
and repository shall include information on the safety
fitness of each motor carrier and registrant and other
information the Secretary considers appropriate, including
information on motor carrier, commercial motor vehicle, and
driver safety performance.
``(2) Design.--The program shall link Federal safety
information systems with State registration and licensing
systems and shall be designed to enable a State to--
``(A) determine the safety fitness of a motor carrier or
registrant when licensing or registering the motor carrier or
commercial motor vehicle or while the license or registration
is in effect; and
``(B) decide, in cooperation with the Secretary, whether
and what types of sanctions or operating limitations to
impose on the motor carrier or registrant to ensure safety.
``(3) Conditions for participation.--The Secretary shall
require States, as a condition of participation in the
program, to--
``(A) comply with the technical and operational standards
prescribed by the Secretary under subsection (a)(4); and
``(B) possess or seek authority to impose commercial motor
vehicle registration sanctions or operating limitations on
the basis of a Federal safety fitness determination.
``(4) Funding.--Of the amounts made available under section
31107, not more than $6,000,000 in each of fiscal years 1998
through 2003 may be used to carry out this subsection.
``(c) Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety Program.--In
coordination with the information system under section 31309,
the Secretary is authorized to establish a program to improve
commercial motor vehicle driver safety. The objectives of the
program shall include--
``(1) enhancing the exchange of driver licensing
information among the States and among the States, the
Federal Government, and foreign countries;
``(2) providing information to the judicial system on
commercial motor vehicle drivers;
``(3) evaluating any aspect of driver performance that the
Secretary determines appropriate; and
``(4) developing appropriate strategies and countermeasures
to improve driver safety.
``(d) Cooperative Agreements, Grants, and Contracts.--The
Secretary may carry out this section either independently or
in cooperation with other Federal departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities, or by making grants to, and entering into
contracts and cooperative agreements with, States, local
governments, associations, institutions, corporations, and
other persons.
``(e) Information Availability and Privacy Protection.--
``(1) Availability of information.--The Secretary shall
make data collected in systems and through programs under
this section available to the public to the maximum extent
permissible under the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) and
the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
``(2) Review of data.--The Secretary shall allow
individuals and motor carriers to whom the data pertains to
review periodically such data and to request corrections or
clarifications.
``(3) State and local officials.--State and local safety
and enforcement officials shall have access to data made
available under this subsection to the same extent as Federal
safety and enforcement officials.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 31107 is
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 31107. Authorization of appropriations for information
systems
``(a) In General.--There shall be available from the
Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) to
carry out sections 31106 and 31309 of this title--
``(1) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
``(2) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(3) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through
2003.
The amounts made available under this subsection shall remain
available until expended.
``(b) Contract Authority.--Approval by the Secretary of a
grant with funds made available under this section imposes
upon the United States Government a contractual obligation
for payment of the Government's share of costs incurred in
carrying out the objectives of the grant.''.
(c) Subchapter Heading.--The heading for subchapter I of
chapter 311 is amended by inserting after ``GRANTS'' the
following: ``AND OTHER COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--The table of sections for
chapter 311 is amended--
(1) by striking
``SUBCHAPTER I--STATE GRANTS''
and inserting
``SUBCHAPTER I--STATE GRANTS AND OTHER COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE
PROGRAMS'';
(2) by striking the item relating to section 31106 and
inserting the following:
``31106. Information systems.''; and
(3) by striking the item relating to section 31107 and
inserting the following:
``31107. Authorization of appropriations for information systems.''.
SEC. 404. AUTOMOBILE TRANSPORTER DEFINED.
Section 31111(a) is amended--
(1) by striking ``section--'' and inserting ``section, the
following definitions apply:'';
(2) by inserting after ``(1)'' the following: ``Maxi-cube
vehicle.--The term'';
(3) by inserting after ``(2)'' the following: ``Truck
tractor.--The term'';
(4) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively; and
(5) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated,
the following:
``(1) Automobile transporter.--The term `automobile
transporter' means any vehicle combination designed and used
specifically for the transport of assembled highway
vehicles.''.
SEC. 405. INSPECTIONS AND REPORTS.
(a) General Powers of the Secretary.--Section 31133(a)(1)
is amended by inserting ``and make contracts for'' after
``conduct''.
(b) Reports and Records.--Section 504(c) is amended by
inserting ``(and, in the case of a motor carrier, a
contractor)'' before the second comma.
SEC. 406. EXEMPTIONS AND PILOT PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Section 31315 is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 31315. Exemptions and pilot programs
``(a) Exemptions.--
``(1) In general.--Upon receipt of a request pursuant to
paragraph (3), the Secretary of Transportation may grant to a
person or class of persons an exemption from a regulation
prescribed under this chapter or section 31136 if the
Secretary finds such exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equal to or greater than the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption. An exemption may be granted
for no longer than 2 years from its approval date and may be
renewed upon application to the Secretary.
``(2) Authority to revoke exemption.--The Secretary shall
immediately revoke an exemption if the person fails to comply
with the terms and conditions of such exemption or if
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with
the goals and objectives of this chapter or section 31136, as
the case may be.
``(3) Requests for exemption.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this section and after
notice and an opportunity for public comment, the Secretary
shall specify by regulation the procedures by which a person
may request an exemption. Such regulations shall, at a
minimum, require the person to provide the following
information for each exemption request:
[[Page H1973]]
``(A) The provisions from which the person requests
exemption.
``(B) The time period during which the exemption would
apply.
``(C) An analysis of the safety impacts the exemption may
cause.
``(D) The specific countermeasures the person would
undertake, if the exemption were granted, to ensure an equal
or greater level of safety than would be achieved absent the
exemption.
``(4) Notice and comment.--
``(A) Upon receipt of a request.--Upon receipt of an
exemption request, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal
Register a notice explaining the request that has been filed
and shall give the public an opportunity to inspect the
safety analysis and any other relevant information known to
the Secretary and to comment on the request. This
subparagraph does not require the release of information
protected by law from public disclosure.
``(B) Upon granting a request.--Upon granting a request for
exemption, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal
Register the name of the person granted the exemption, the
provisions from which the person will be exempt, the
effective period, and all terms and conditions of the
exemption.
``(C) Upon denying a request.--Upon denying a request for
exemption, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal
Register the name of the person denied the exemption and the
reasons for such denial.
``(5) Applications to be dealt with promptly.--The
Secretary shall grant or deny an exemption request after a
thorough review of its safety implications, but in no case
later than 180 days after the filing date of such request, or
the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register the
reason for the delay in the decision and an estimate of when
the decision will be made.
``(6) Terms and conditions.--The Secretary shall establish
terms and conditions for each exemption to ensure that it
will likely achieve a level of safety equal to or greater
than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.
The Secretary shall monitor the implementation of the
exemption to ensure compliance with its terms and conditions.
``(7) Notification of state compliance and enforcement
personnel.--Before granting a request for exemption, the
Secretary shall notify State safety compliance and
enforcement personnel, including roadside inspectors, and the
public that a person will be operating pursuant to an
exemption and any terms and conditions that will apply to the
exemption.
``(b) Pilot Programs.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may conduct pilot programs
to evaluate innovative approaches to motor carrier, vehicle,
and driver safety. Such pilot programs may include exemptions
from a regulation prescribed under this chapter or section
31136 if the pilot program contains, at a minimum, the
elements described in paragraph (2). The Secretary shall
publish in the Federal Register a detailed description of
the program and the exemptions to be considered and
provide notice and an opportunity for public comment
before the effective date of any exemptions.
``(2) Program elements.--In proposing a pilot program and
before granting exemptions for purposes of a pilot program,
the Secretary shall include, at a minimum, the following
elements in each pilot program plan:
``(A) A program scheduled life of not more than 3 years.
``(B) A scientifically valid methodology and study design,
including a specific data collection and analysis plan, that
identifies appropriate control groups for comparison.
``(C) The fewest participants necessary to yield
statistically valid findings.
``(D) Observance of appropriate ethical protocols for the
use of human subjects in field experiments.
``(E) An oversight plan to ensure that participants comply
with the terms and conditions of participation.
``(F) Adequate countermeasures to protect the health and
safety of study participants and the general public.
``(G) A plan to inform State partners and the public about
the pilot program and to identify approved participants to
safety compliance and enforcement personnel and to the
public.
``(3) Authority to revoke participation.--The Secretary
shall immediately revoke participation in a pilot program of
a motor carrier, vehicle, or driver for failure to comply
with the terms and conditions of the pilot program or if
continued participation would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of this chapter or section 31136, as the
case may be.
``(4) Authority to terminate program.--The Secretary shall
immediately terminate a pilot program if its continuation
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of this
chapter or section 31136, as the case may be.
``(5) Report to congress.--At the conclusion of each pilot
program, the Secretary shall promptly report to Congress the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the program,
including suggested amendments to law or regulation that
would enhance motor carrier, vehicle, and driver safety and
improve compliance with national safety standards.
``(c) Preemption of State Rules.--During the time period
that an exemption or pilot program is in effect under this
section, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that
conflicts with or is inconsistent with an exemption or pilot
program with respect to a person exercising the exemption or
participating in the pilot program.''.
(b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for chapter
313 is amended by striking the item relating to section 31315
and inserting the following:
``31315. Exemptions and pilot programs.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 31136(e) is amended to
read as follows:
``(e) Exemptions.--The Secretary may grant exemptions from
any regulation prescribed under this section in accordance
with section 31315.''.
(d) Protection of Existing Exemptions.--The amendments made
by subsections (a) and (c) of this section shall not apply to
or otherwise affect an exemption or waiver in effect on the
day before the date of the enactment of this Act under
section 31315 or 31136(e) of title 49, United States Code.
SEC. 407. SAFETY REGULATION.
(a) Commercial Motor Vehicle Defined.--Section 31132(1) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by inserting ``or gross vehicle weight'' after
``rating''; and
(B) by inserting ``, whichever is greater'' after
``pounds''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by inserting ``or livery'' after ``taxicab''; and
(B) by striking ``6 passengers'' and inserting ``8
passengers, including the driver,''.
(b) Repeal of Review Panel.--Section 31134, and the item
relating to such section in the table of sections for chapter
311, are repealed.
(c) Repeal of Submission to Review Panel.--Section 31140,
and the item relating to such section in the table of
sections for chapter 311, are repealed.
(d) Review Procedure.--Section 31141 is amended--
(1) by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Submission of Regulation.--A State that enacts a
State law or issues a regulation on commercial motor vehicle
safety shall submit a copy of the law or regulation to the
Secretary of Transportation immediately after the enactment
or issuance.
``(c) Review and Decisions by Secretary.--
``(1) Review.--The Secretary shall review State laws and
regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety. The Secretary
shall decide whether the State law or regulation--
``(A) has the same effect as a regulation prescribed by the
Secretary under section 31136;
``(B) is less stringent than such regulation; or
``(C) is additional to or more stringent than such
regulation.
``(2) Regulations with same effect.--If the Secretary
decides a State law or regulation has the same effect as a
regulation prescribed by the Secretary under section 31136 of
this title, the State law or regulation may be enforced.
``(3) Less stringent regulations.--If the Secretary decides
a State law or regulation is less stringent than a regulation
prescribed by the Secretary under section 31136 of this
title, the State law or regulation may not be enforced.
``(4) Additional or more stringent regulations.--If the
Secretary decides a State law or regulation is additional to
or more stringent than a regulation prescribed by the
Secretary under section 31136 of this title, the State law or
regulation may be enforced unless the Secretary also decides
that--
``(A) the State law or regulation has no safety benefit;
``(B) the State law or regulation is incompatible with the
regulation prescribed by the Secretary; or
``(C) enforcement of the State law or regulation would
cause an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.
``(5) Consideration of effect on interstate commerce.--In
deciding under paragraph (4) whether a State law or
regulation will cause an unreasonable burden on interstate
commerce, the Secretary may consider the effect on interstate
commerce of implementation of that law or regulation with the
implementation of all similar laws and regulations of other
States.'';
(2) by striking subsection (e); and
(3) by redesignating subsections (f), (g), and (h) as
subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively.
(e) Inspection of Safety Equipment.--Section 31142(a) is
amended by striking ``part 393 of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations'' and inserting ``the regulations issued under
section 31136''.
(f) Protection of States Participating in State Groups.--
Section 31142(c)(1)(C) is amended--
(1) by inserting after ``from'' the following:
``participating in the activities of a voluntary group of
States''; and
(2) by striking ``that meets'' and all that follows through
``1984''.
(g) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate a report on the status of
implementation of the amendments made by subsection (a)(2) of
this section.
SEC. 408. IMPROVED INTERSTATE SCHOOL BUS SAFETY.
(a) Applicability of Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations to Interstate School Bus Operations.--Section
31136 is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Applicability to School Transportation Operations of
Local Education Agencies.--Not later than 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall
issue regulations making the relevant commercial motor
carrier safety regulations issued under subsection (a)
applicable to all interstate school transportation operations
by local educational agencies (as defined in section 14101 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965).''.
(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing the
[[Page H1974]]
status of compliance by private for-hire motor carriers and
local educational agencies in meeting the requirements of
section 31136 of title 49, United States Code, and any
activities of the Secretary or the States to enforce such
requirements.
SEC. 409. REPEAL OF CERTAIN OBSOLETE MISCELLANEOUS
AUTHORITIES.
Subchapter IV of chapter 311 (including sections 31161 and
31162), and the items relating to such subchapter and
sections in the table of sections for chapter 311, are
repealed.
SEC. 410. COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATORS.
(a) Commercial Motor Vehicle Defined.--Section 31301(4) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by inserting ``or gross vehicle weight'' after
``rating'' the first 2 places it appears; and
(B) by inserting ``, whichever is greater,'' after
``pounds'' the first place it appears; and
(2) in subparagraph (C)(ii) by inserting ``is'' before
``transporting'' each place it appears.
(b) Prohibition on CMV Operation Without CDL.--
(1) In general.--Section 31302 is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 31302. Driver's license requirement
``An individual may operate a commercial motor vehicle only
if the individual has a valid commercial driver's license. An
individual operating a commercial motor vehicle may have only
one driver's license at any time.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The item relating to section
31302 in the table of sections for chapter 313 is amended to
read as follows:
``31302. Driver's license requirement.''.
(c) Unique Identifiers in CDLs.--
(1) In general.--Section 31308(2) is amended by inserting
before the semicolon ``and each license issued after January
1, 2000, include unique identifiers to minimize fraud and
duplication''.
(2) Deadline for issuance of regulations.--Not later than
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall issue regulations to carry out the amendment
made by paragraph (1).
(d) Commercial Driver's License Information System.--
Section 31309 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``make an agreement under
subsection (b) of this section for the operation of, or
establish under subsection (c) of this section,'' and
inserting ``maintain'';
(2) by inserting after the first sentence of subsection (a)
the following: ``The system shall be coordinated with
activities carried out under section 31106.'';
(3) by striking subsections (b) and (c);
(4) in subsection (d)(1)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) information on all fines, penalties, convictions, and
failure to appear for a hearing or trial incurred by the
operator with respect to operation of a motor vehicle for a
period of not less than 3 years beginning on the date of the
imposition of such a fine or penalty or the date of such a
conviction or failure to appear.'';
(5) by striking subsection (d)(2) and inserting the
following:
``(2) The information system under this section must
accommodate any unique identifiers required to minimize fraud
or duplication of a commercial driver's license under section
31308(2).'';
(6) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
``(e) Availability of Information.--Information in the
information system shall be made available and subject to
review and correction in accordance with section 31106(e).'';
(7) in subsection (f) by striking ``If the Secretary
establishes an information system under this section, the''
and inserting ``The'';
(8) by striking ``shall'' in the first sentence of
subsection (f) and inserting ``may''; and
(9) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as
subsections (b), (c), and (d), respectively.
(e) Repeal of Obsolete Grant Programs.--Sections 31312 and
31313, and the items relating to such sections in the table
of sections for chapter 313, are repealed.
(f) Updating Amendments.--Section 31314 is amended--
(1) by striking ``(2), (5), and (6)'' each place it appears
in subsections (a) and (b) and inserting ``(3), and (5)'';
(2) in subsection (c) by striking ``(1) Amounts'' and all
that follows through ``(2) Amounts'' and inserting
``Amounts'';
(3) by striking subsection (d); and
(4) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (d).
SEC. 411. INTERIM BORDER SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) Program.--The Secretary shall carry out a program to
improve commercial motor vehicle safety in the vicinity of
borders between the United States and Canada and the United
States and Mexico.
(b) Grant and Other Authority.--The Secretary may expend
funds made available to carry out this section--
(1) for making grants to border States, local governments,
organizations, and other persons to carry out activities
described in subsection (c);
(2) for personnel of the Department of Transportation to
conduct such activities; and
(3) for entry into contracts for the conduct of such
activities.
(c) Use of Funds.--Activities for which funds may be
expended under this section include--
(1) employment by the Department of Transportation or a
border State of additional personnel to enforce commercial
motor vehicle safety regulations described in subsection (a);
(2) training of personnel to enforce such regulations;
(3) development of data bases and communication systems to
improve commercial motor vehicle safety; and
(4) education and outreach initiatives.
(d) Criteria.--In selecting activities and projects for
funding under this section, the Secretary shall consider
current levels of enforcement by border States, cross border
traffic patterns (including volume of commercial motor
vehicle traffic), location of inspection facilities, and such
other factors as the Secretary determines will result in the
greatest safety improvement and benefit to border States and
the Nation.
(e) Federal Share.--
(1) In general.--The Federal share payable under a grant
made under this section for--
(A) any activity described in paragraph (2), (3), or (4) of
subsection (c) shall be 80 percent; and
(B) any activity described in subsection (c)(1) shall be--
(i) 80 percent for the first 2 years that a State receives
a grant under this section for such activity;
(ii) 50 percent for the third and fourth years that a State
receives a grant under this section for such activity; and
(iii) 25 percent for the fifth and sixth years that a State
receives a grant under this section for such activity.
(2) In-kind contributions.--In determining the non-Federal
costs under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include in-
kind contributions by the grant recipient, of which up to
$2,500,000 may be used to upgrade earthquake simulation
facilities as required to carry out the program.
(f) Maintenance of Effort.--A grant may not be made to a
State under this section for an activity described in
subsection (c)(1) in any fiscal year unless the State enters
into such agreements with the Secretary as the Secretary may
require to ensure that the State will maintain its aggregate
expenditures from all other sources for employment of
personnel to enforce commercial motor vehicle safety
regulations in the vicinity of the border at or above the
average level of such expenditures in the State's 2 fiscal
years preceding the date of the enactment of this section.
(g) Funding.--Of amounts made available to carry out the
coordinated border infrastructure and safety program under
section 116 of this Act, $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 and
$15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003 shall
be available to carry out this section.
(h) Border State Defined.--In this section, the term
``border State'' means any State that has a boundary in
common with Canada or Mexico.
SEC. 412. VEHICLE WEIGHT ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of State
laws and regulations pertaining to penalties for violation of
State commercial motor vehicle weight laws.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the study shall be to
determine the effectiveness of State penalties as a deterrent
to illegally overweight trucking operations. The study shall
evaluate fine structures, innovative roadside enforcement
techniques, a State's ability to penalize shippers and
carriers as well as drivers, and shall examine the
effectiveness of administrative and judicial procedures
utilized to enforce vehicle weight laws.
(c) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to
Congress a report on the results of the study conducted under
this section, together with any legislative recommendations
of the Secretary.
(d) Funding.--From amounts made available under
subparagraphs (F) through (I) of section 127(a)(3) of this
Act, the Secretary may use not to exceed $300,000 to carry
out this section.
SEC. 413. PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION PLAN
AND INTERNATIONAL FUEL TAX AGREEMENT.
Sections 31702, 31703, and 31708, and the items relating to
such sections in the table of sections for chapter 317, are
repealed.
SEC. 414. TELEPHONE HOTLINE FOR REPORTING SAFETY VIOLATIONS.
(a) In General.--For a period of not less than 2 years
beginning on or before the 90th day following the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish,
maintain, and promote the use of a nationwide toll-free
telephone system to be used by drivers of commercial motor
vehicles and others to report potential violations of Federal
motor carrier safety regulations and any laws or regulations
relating to the safe operation of commercial motor vehicles
and to report potentially improper inspections, audits, and
enforcement activities.
(b) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall monitor reports
received by the telephone system and shall consider
nonfrivolous information provided by such reports in setting
priorities for motor carrier safety audits and other
enforcement activities.
(c) Protection of Persons Reporting Violations.--
(1) Prohibition.--A person reporting a potential violation
to the telephone system while acting in good faith may not be
discharged, disciplined, or discriminated against regarding
pay, terms, or privileges of employment because of the
reporting of such violation.
(2) Applicability of section 31105 of title 49.--For
purposes of section 31105 of title 49, United States Code, a
violation or alleged violation of paragraph (1) shall be
treated as a violation of section 31105(a) of such title.
(d) Funding.--From amounts set aside under section 104(a)
of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary may use not to
exceed $300,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to
carry out this section.
SEC. 415. INSULIN TREATED DIABETES MELLITUS.
(a) Determination.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of the enactment of this
[[Page H1975]]
Act, the Secretary shall determine whether a practicable and
cost-effective screening, operating, and monitoring protocol
could likely be developed for insulin treated diabetes
mellitus individuals who want to operate commercial motor
vehicles in interstate commerce that would ensure a level of
safety equal to or greater than that achieved with the
current prohibition on individuals with insulin treated
diabetes mellitus driving such vehicles.
(b) Compilation and Evaluation.--Prior to making the
determination in subsection (a), the Secretary shall compile
and evaluate research and other information on the effects of
insulin treated diabetes mellitus on driving performance. In
preparing the compilation and evaluation, the Secretary
shall, at a minimum--
(1) consult with States that have developed and are
implementing a screening process to identify individuals with
insulin treated diabetes mellitus who may obtain waivers to
drive commercial motor vehicles in intrastate commerce;
(2) evaluate the Department's policy and actions to permit
certain insulin treated diabetes mellitus individuals who
meet selection criteria and who successfully comply with the
approved monitoring protocol to operate in other modes of
transportation;
(3) analyze available data on the safety performance of
diabetic drivers of motor vehicles;
(4) assess the relevance of intrastate driving and
experiences of other modes of transportation to interstate
commercial motor vehicle operations; and
(5) consult with interested groups knowledgeable about
diabetes and related issues.
(c) Report to Congress.--If the Secretary determines that
no protocol described in subsection (a) could likely be
developed, the Secretary shall report to Congress the basis
for such determination.
(d) Initiation of Rulemaking.--If the Secretary determines
that a protocol described in subsection (a) could likely be
developed, the Secretary shall report to Congress a
description of the elements of such protocol and shall
promptly initiate a rulemaking proceeding to implement such
protocol.
SEC. 416. PERFORMANCE-BASED CDL TESTING.
(a) Review.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete a review
of the procedures established and implemented by States under
section 31305 of title 49, United States Code, to determine
if the current system for testing is an accurate measure and
reflection of an individual's knowledge and skills as an
operator of a commercial motor vehicle and to identify
methods to improve testing and licensing standards, including
identifying the benefits and costs of a graduated licensing
system.
(b) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
completion of the review under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall issue regulations under section 31305 reflecting the
results of the review.
SEC. 417. POSTACCIDENT ALCOHOL TESTING.
(a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the
feasibility of utilizing qualified emergency responders and
law enforcement officers for conducting postaccident alcohol
testing of commercial motor vehicle operators under section
31306 of title 49, United States Code, as a method of
obtaining more timely information and reducing the burdens
that employers may encounter in meeting the testing
requirements of such section.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to
Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection (a)
with recommendations regarding the utilization of emergency
responders and law enforcement officers in conducting testing
described in subsection (a).
SEC. 418. DRIVER FATIGUE.
(a) Technologies To Reduce Fatigue of Commercial Motor
Vehicle Operators.--
(1) Development of technologies.--As part of the activities
of the Secretary relating to the fatigue of commercial motor
vehicle operators, the Secretary shall encourage the
research, development, and demonstration of technologies that
may aid in reducing such fatigue.
(2) Identification of technologies.--In identifying
technologies pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
take into account--
(A) the degree to which the technology will be cost
efficient;
(B) the degree to which the technology can be effectively
used in diverse climatic regions of the Nation; and
(C) the degree to which the application of the technology
will further emissions reductions, energy conservation, and
other transportation goals.
(3) Funding.--The Secretary may use amounts made available
under subparagraphs (F) through (I) of section 127(a)(3) of
this Act to carry out this subsection.
(b) Nonsedating Antihistamines.--The Secretary shall review
available information on the effects of antihistamines on
driver fatigue, awareness, and performance and shall consider
encouraging the use of nonsedating antihistamines as a means
of reducing the adverse effects of the use of other
antihistamines by drivers.
SEC. 419. SAFETY FITNESS.
(a) In General.--Section 31144 is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 31144. Safety fitness of owners and operators
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) determine whether an owner or operator is fit to
operate safely commercial motor vehicles;
``(2) periodically update such safety fitness
determinations;
``(3) make such safety fitness determinations readily
available to the public; and
``(4) prescribe by regulation penalties for violations of
this section consistent with section 521.
``(b) Procedure.--The Secretary shall maintain by
regulation a procedure for determining whether an owner or
operator is fit to operate safely commercial motor vehicles.
The procedure shall include, at a minimum, the following
elements:
``(1) Specific initial and continuing requirements with
which an owner or operator must comply to demonstrate safety
fitness.
``(2) A methodology the Secretary will use to determine
whether an owner or operator is fit.
``(3) Specific time frames within which the Secretary will
determine whether an owner or operator is fit.
``(c) Prohibited Transportation.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in sections
521(b)(5)(A) and 5113 and this subsection, an owner or
operator who the Secretary determines is not fit may not
operate commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce
beginning on the 61st day after the date of such fitness
determination and until the Secretary determines such owner
or operator is fit.
``(2) Owners or operators transporting passengers.--With
regard to owners or operators of commercial motor vehicles
designed or used to transport passengers, an owner or
operator who the Secretary determines is not fit may not
operate in interstate commerce beginning on the 46th day
after the date of such fitness determination and until the
Secretary determines such owner or operator is fit.
``(3) Owners or operators transporting hazardous
material.--With regard to owners or operators of commercial
motor vehicles designed or used to transport hazardous
material for which placarding of a motor vehicle is required
under regulations prescribed under chapter 51, an owner or
operator who the Secretary determines is not fit may not
operate in interstate commerce beginning on the 46th day
after the date of such fitness determination and until the
Secretary determines such owner or operator is fit.
``(4) Secretary's discretion.--Except for owners or
operators described in paragraphs (2) and (3), the Secretary
may allow an owner or operator who is not fit to continue
operating for an additional 60 days after the 61st day after
the date of the Secretary's fitness determination, if the
Secretary determines that such owner or operator is making a
good faith effort to become fit.
``(d) Review of Fitness Determinations.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 45 days after an unfit
owner or operator requests a review, the Secretary shall
review such owner's or operator's compliance with those
requirements with which the owner or operator failed to
comply and resulted in the Secretary determining that the
owner or operator was not fit.
``(2) Owners or operators transporting passengers.--Not
later than 30 days after an unfit owner or operator of
commercial motor vehicles designed or used to transport
passengers requests a review, the Secretary shall review such
owner's or operator's compliance with those requirements with
which the owner or operator failed to comply and resulted in
the Secretary determining that the owner or operator was not
fit.
``(3) Owners or operators transporting hazardous
material.--Not later than 30 days after an unfit owner or
operator of commercial motor vehicles designed or used to
transport hazardous material for which placarding of a motor
vehicle is required under regulations prescribed under
chapter 51, the Secretary shall review such owner's or
operator's compliance with those requirements with which the
owner or operator failed to comply and resulted in the
Secretary determining that the owner or operator was not fit.
``(e) Prohibited Government Use.--A department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government may not use
to provide any transportation service an owner or operator
who the Secretary has determined is not fit until the
Secretary determines such owner or operator is fit.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5113 is amended by
striking subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) and inserting the
following:
``See section 31144.''.
SEC. 420. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION REGULATION AND
FARM SERVICE VEHICLES.
(a) Exceptions.--Section 5117(d)(2) is amended--
(1) by striking ``do not prohibit'';
(2) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by inserting ``do not prohibit'' before ``or
regulate''; and
(B) by striking ``or'' the last place it appears;
(3) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``do not prohibit''
before ``transportation'';
(4) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) do not prohibit a State from providing an exception
from requirements relating to placarding, shipping papers,
and emergency telephone numbers for the private motor
carriage in intrastate transportation of an agricultural
production material from a source of supply to a farm, from a
farm to another farm, from a field to another field on a
farm, or from the farm back to the source of supply.
In granting any exception under subparagraph (C), a State
must certify to the Secretary that such exception is in the
public interest, the need for such exception, and that the
State shall monitor the exception and take such measures
necessary to ensure that safety is not compromised.''.
(b) Agricultural Production Material Defined.--Section 5117
is amended by adding at the end the following:
[[Page H1976]]
``(f) Agricultural Production Material Defined.--In this
section, the term `agricultural production material' means--
``(1) ammonium nitrate fertilizer in a quantity that does
not exceed 16,094 pounds;
``(2) a pesticide in a quantity that does not exceed 502
gallons for liquids and 5,070 pounds for solids; and
``(3) a diluted solution of water and pesticides or
fertilizer in a quantity that does not exceed 3,500
gallons.''.
SEC. 421. TRUCK TRAILER CONSPICUITY.
(a) Issuance of Final Rule.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
issue a final rule regarding the conspicuity of trailers
manufactured before December 1, 1993.
(b) Considerations.--In conducting the rulemaking under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider, at a minimum,
the following:
(1) The cost-effectiveness of any requirement to retrofit
trailers manufactured before December 1, 1993.
(2) The extent to which motor carriers have voluntarily
taken steps to increase equipment visibility.
(3) Regulatory flexibility to accommodate differing trailer
designs and configurations, such as tank trucks.
SEC. 422. DOT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
(a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall develop
and submit to Congress a plan for implementing authority (if
subsequently provided by law) to--
(1) investigate and bring civil actions to enforce chapter
5 of title 49, United States Code, or a regulation or order
of the Secretary under such chapter, when violated by
shippers, freight forwarders, brokers, consignees, or persons
(other than rail carriers, motor carriers, motor carriers of
migrant workers, or motor private carriers); and
(2) assess civil or criminal penalties against a person who
knowingly aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or
procures a violation of a regulation or an order of the
Secretary under chapter 311 or section 31502 of such title to
the same extent as a motor carrier or driver who commits such
a violation.
(b) Contents of Implementation Plan.--In developing the
implementation plan, the Secretary, at a minimum, shall
consider--
(1) in what circumstances the Secretary would exercise the
new authority;
(2) how the Secretary would determine that shippers,
freight forwarders, brokers, consignees, or other persons
committed violations described in subsection (a), including
what types of evidence would be conclusive;
(3) what procedures would be necessary during
investigations to ensure the confidentiality of shipper
contract terms prior to the Secretary's findings of
violations;
(4) what impact the exercise of the new authority would
have on the Secretary's resources, including whether
additional investigative or legal resources would be
necessary and whether the staff would need specialized
education or training to exercise properly such authority;
(5) to what extent the Secretary would conduct educational
activities for persons who would be subject to the new
authority; and
(6) any other information that would assist the Congress in
determining whether to provide the Secretary the new
authority.
TITLE V--PROGRAMMATIC REFORMS AND STREAMLINING
SEC. 501. PROJECT APPROVAL AND OVERSIGHT.
(a) In General.--Section 106 is amended by striking the
section heading and all that follows through the period at
the end of subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``Sec. 106. Project approval and oversight
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Submission of plans, specifications, and estimates.--
Except as otherwise provided in this section, each State
highway department shall submit to the Secretary for approval
such plans, specifications, and estimates for each proposed
project as the Secretary may require.
``(2) Project agreement.--The Secretary shall act upon the
plans, specifications, and estimates as soon as practicable
after the date of their submission and shall enter into a
formal project agreement with the State highway department
formalizing the conditions of the project approval.
``(3) Contractual obligation.--The execution of the project
agreement shall be deemed a contractual obligation of the
Federal Government for the payment of its proportional
contribution thereto.
``(4) Guidance.--In taking action under this subsection,
the Secretary shall be guided by the provisions of section
109.
``(b) Project Agreement.--
``(1) Provision of state funds.--The project agreement
shall make provision for State funds required for the State's
pro rata share of the cost of construction of the project and
for the maintenance of the project after completion of
construction.
``(2) Representations of state.--The Secretary may rely
upon representations made by the State highway department
with respect to the arrangements or agreements made by the
State highway department and appropriate local officials if a
part of the project is to be constructed at the expense of,
or in cooperation with, local subdivisions of the State.
``(c) Special Rules for Project Oversight.--
``(1) NHS projects.--
``(A) General authority.--Except as otherwise provided in
subsection (d), the Secretary may discharge to the State any
of the Secretary's responsibilities under this title for
design, plans, specifications, estimates, contract awards,
and inspection of projects on the National Highway System.
``(B) Agreement.--The Secretary and the State shall reach
agreement as to the extent the State may assume the
Secretary's responsibilities under this subsection. The
Secretary may not assume any greater responsibility than the
Secretary is permitted under this title on September 30,
1997, except upon agreement by the Secretary and the State.
``(2) Non-interstate system projects.--For all projects
under this title that are not on the National Highway System,
the State shall assume the Secretary's responsibility under
this title for design, plans, specifications, estimates,
contract awards, and inspection of projects. For projects
that are on the National Highway System but not on the
Interstate System, the State shall assume the Secretary's
responsibility under this title for design, plans,
specifications, estimates, contract awards, and inspections
of projects unless the State or the Secretary determines that
such assumption is not appropriate.
``(d) Secretary's Responsibilities.--Nothing in this
section, section 133, and section 149 shall affect or
discharge any responsibility or obligation of the Secretary
under any Federal law, other than this title. Any
responsibility or obligation of the Secretary under sections
113 and 114 of this title and section 5333 of title 49,
United States Code, shall not be affected and may not be
discharged under this section, section 133, or section
149.''.
(b) Repeal of Obsolete Provisions.--Sections 105, 110, and
117, and the items relating to such sections in the table of
sections for chapter 1, are repealed.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to section
106 and inserting:
``106. Project approval and oversight.''.
SEC. 502. ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING.
(a) Coordinated Environmental Review Process.--
(1) Development and implementation.--The Secretary shall
develop and implement a coordinated environmental review
process for highway construction projects that require--
(A) the preparation of an environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, except that the Secretary may decide not
to apply this section to the preparation of an environmental
assessment under such Act; or
(B) the conduct of any other environmental review,
analysis, opinion, or issuance of an environmental permit,
license, or approval by operation of Federal law.
(2) Memorandum of understanding.--The coordinated
environmental review process for each project shall ensure
that, whenever practicable (as set forth in this section),
all environmental reviews, analyses, opinions, and any
permits, licenses, or approvals that must be issued or made
by any Federal agency for the concerned highway project shall
be conducted concurrently and completed within a
cooperatively determined time period. Such process for a
project or class of projects may be incorporated into a
memorandum of understanding between the Department of
Transportation and all other Federal agencies (and, where
appropriate, State agencies). In establishing such time
period and any time periods for review within such period the
Department and all such agencies shall take into account
their respective resources and statutory commitments.
(b) Elements of Coordinated Environmental Review Process.--
For each highway project, the coordinated environmental
review process established under this section shall provide,
at a minimum, for the following elements:
(1) Agency identification.--The Secretary shall, at the
earliest possible time, identify all potential Federal
agencies that--
(A) have jurisdiction by law over environmental-related
issues that may be affected by the project and the analysis
of which would be part of any environmental document required
by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; or
(B) may be required by Federal law to independently--
(i) conduct an environmental-related review or analysis; or
(ii) determine whether to issue a permit, license, or
approval or render an opinion on the environmental impact of
the project.
(2) Time limitations and concurrent review.--The Secretary
and the head of each Federal agency identified under
paragraph (1)--
(A)(i) shall jointly develop and establish time periods for
review for--
(I) all Federal agency comments with respect to any
environmental review documents required by the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for the project; and
(II) all other independent Federal agency environmental
analyses, reviews, opinions, and decisions on any permits,
licenses, and approvals that must be issued or made for the
project;
whereby each such Federal agency's review shall be undertaken
and completed within such established time periods for
review; or
(ii) may enter into an agreement to establish such time
periods for review with respect to a class of projects; and
(B) shall ensure, in establishing such time periods for
review, that the conduct of any such analysis, review,
opinion, and decision is undertaken concurrently with all
other environmental reviews for the project, including those
required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969;
except that such review may not be concurrent if the affected
Federal agency can demonstrate that such concurrent review
would result in a significant adverse impact to the
environment or substantively alter the operation of Federal
law or would not be possible without information developed as
part of the environmental review process.
(3) Factors to be considered.--Time periods for review
established under this section shall be
[[Page H1977]]
consistent with those established by the Council on
Environmental Quality under the provisions of sections 1501.8
and 1506.10 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
(4) Extensions.--The Secretary shall extend any time
periods for review under this section if, upon good cause
shown, the Secretary and any Federal agency concerned
determine that additional time for analysis and review is
needed as a result of new information which has been
discovered that could not reasonably have been anticipated
when such agency's time periods for review were established.
Any memorandum of understanding shall be modified to
incorporate any mutually agreed upon extensions.
(c) Dispute Resolution.--When the Secretary determines that
a Federal agency which is subject to a time period for its
environmental review or analysis under this section has
failed to complete such review, analysis, opinion, or
decision on issuing any permit, license, or approval within
the established time period or within any agreed upon
extension to such time period, then the Secretary may close
the record. If the Secretary finds after timely compliance
with this section, that an environmental issue related to the
highway project that an affected Federal agency has
jurisdiction over by operation of Federal law has not been
resolved, then the Secretary and the head of such agency
shall resolve the matter within 30 days of the finding by the
Secretary.
(d) Acceptance of Purpose and Need.--For any environmental
impact statement prepared pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or the conduct of any other
environmental review, analysis, opinion, or issuance of an
environmental permit, license, or approval that requires an
analysis of purpose and need, the agency conducting such
review with respect to the highway project shall give due
consideration to the project purpose and need as defined by
the Secretary and the project applicant.
(e) Participation of State Agencies.--For any project
eligible for assistance under chapter 1 of title 23, United
States Code, a State, by operation of State law, may require
that all State agencies that have jurisdiction by State or
Federal law over environmental-related issues that may be
affected by the project or must issue any environmental-
related reviews, analyses, opinions, or determinations on
issuing any permits, licenses, or approvals for the project
be subject to the coordinated environmental review process
provided for in this section unless the Secretary determines
that a State's participation would not be in the public
interest. For a State to require State agencies to
participate in the review process, all affected agencies of
such State shall be subject to the review process.
(f) Assistance to Affected Federal Agencies.--The Secretary
may approve a request by a State to provide funds made
available under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, to
the State for the project subject to the review process
established by this section to affected Federal agencies to
provide the resources necessary to meet any time limits
established by this section. Such requests shall only be
approved for the additional amounts that the Secretary
determines are necessary for such affected Federal agencies
to meet the time limits for environmental review where such
time limits are less than the customary time necessary for
such review.
(g) Federal Agency Defined.--For the purposes of this
section, the term ``Federal agency'' means any Federal agency
or any State agency carrying out affected responsibilities
required by operation of Federal law.
(h) Judicial Review and Savings Clause.--
(1) Judicial review.--Nothing in this section shall affect
the reviewability of any final Federal agency action in a
district court of the United States or in the court of any
State.
(2) Savings clause.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect the applicability of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or any other Federal
environmental statute or affect the responsibility of any
Federal officer to comply with or enforce any such statute.
(i) State Environmental Review Delegation Pilot
Demonstration Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Council on Environmental Quality, shall establish and
implement a State environmental review pilot demonstration
program. Such program shall permit the Secretary, in
cooperation with the Council on Environmental Quality, to
develop criteria for States to select up to 8 States for
participation in the program. A State interested in
participation in the program shall submit to the Secretary an
application for participation.
(2) Delegation of authority.--For each State selected to
participate in the pilot program, the Secretary shall
delegate and the State shall accept all of the
responsibilities for conducting the Federal environmental
review process required by the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 in the manner required if the projects were
undertaken by the Secretary.
(3) Certification.--A State that is selected to participate
in the pilot program shall, prior to assuming any
responsibilities for the Secretary under this subsection,
submit to the Secretary and the Secretary, in cooperation
with the Council on Environmental Quality, shall approve a
certification that shall, at a minimum--
(A) be in a form acceptable to the Secretary;
(B) be executed by the Chief Executive Officer of the
recipient of assistance under this section (hereinafter in
this section referred to as the ``certifying officer'');
(C) specify that the certifying officer consents to assume
the status of a responsible Federal officer under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (and any applicable
regulations issued by the Secretary or the Council on
Environmental Quality implementing such Act) for the affected
project;
(D) accept jurisdiction of the Federal courts for the
purpose of enforcement of the State's responsibilities for
the project; and
(E) agree that the Secretary's approval of such
certification shall constitute the Secretary's
responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 and any other related provisions of law that the
Secretary may specify for the affected project.
(4) Oversight.--For each State selected to participate in
the pilot program, the Secretary shall, in cooperation with
the Council on Environmental Quality, conduct quarterly
audits in the first year of such participation, and annual
audits every year thereafter, to ensure that each selected
State is complying with all elements of the certification
provided for in this subsection and all requirements
delegated pursuant to this subsection.
(5) Termination.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Council on Environmental Quality, may immediately terminate
the participation of any State if the Secretary, in
cooperation with the Council on Environmental Quality, finds
that such State is not complying with any responsibility or
duty set forth in this subsection or that the State's
continued participation in the program would result in any
adverse impact on the environment.
(6) Period of applicability.--The pilot program shall
remain in effect for 3 years. The pilot program shall apply
to all projects initiated within such 3-year period, and any
such project shall be subject to the provisions of this
subsection until the review of the project is completed under
this subsection.
(7) Report to congress.--The Secretary and Council on
Environmental Quality shall transmit to Congress annual
reports on the pilot program.
SEC. 503. MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY INTEGRATION.
The Secretary shall eliminate the major investment study
set forth in section 450.318 of title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations, as a separate requirement and promulgate
regulations to integrate such requirement, as appropriate, as
part of each analysis undertaken pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for a project
receiving assistance with funds made available under this
Act (including any amendments made by this Act).
SEC. 504. FINANCIAL PLAN.
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.
SEC. 505. UNIFORM TRANSFERABILITY OF FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY
FUNDS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 is amended by inserting after
section 109 the following:
``Sec. 110. Uniform transferability of Federal-aid highway
funds
``(a) General Rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law but subject to subsections (b) and (c), if at least 50
percent of a State's apportionment under section 104 or 144
for a fiscal year or at least 50 percent of the funds set-
aside under section 133(d) from the State's apportionment
section 104(b)(3) may not be transferred to any other
apportionment of the State under section 104 or 144 for such
fiscal year, then the State may transfer not to exceed 50
percent of such apportionment or set aside to any other
apportionment of such State under section 104 or 144 for such
fiscal year.
``(b) Application to Certain Set-Asides.--This section
shall not apply to funds subject to the last sentence of
section 133(d)(1) and funds subject to sections 104(f) and
133(d)(3). The maximum amount that a State may transfer under
this section of the State's set-aside under section 133(d)(2)
for a fiscal year may not exceed 50 percent of (1) the amount
of such set-aside, less (2) the amount of the State's set-
aside under section 133(d)(3) for fiscal year 1996.
``(c) Application to Certain CMAQ Funds.--The maximum
amount that a State may transfer under this section of the
State's apportionment under section 104(b)(2) for a fiscal
year may not exceed 50 percent of (1) the amount of such
apportionment, less (2) the amount of the State's
apportionment under section 104(b)(2) for fiscal year 1997.
Any such funds apportioned under section 104(b)(2) and
transferred under this section may only be obligated in
geographic areas eligible for the obligation of funds
apportioned under section 104(b)(2).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 1 is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 109 the following:
``110. Uniform transferability of Federal-aid highway funds.''.
SEC. 506. DISCRETIONARY GRANT SELECTION CRITERIA AND PROCESS.
(a) Establishment of Criteria.--The Secretary shall
establish criteria for all discretionary programs funded from
the Highway Trust Fund (including the Mass Transit Account).
To the extent practicable, such criteria shall conform to the
Executive Order No. 12893 (relating to infrastructure
investment). In formulating such criteria, the Secretary
shall provide that, if 2 or more applications for a
discretionary grant are otherwise equal, then the grant shall
be awarded to the application from a State that has a Highway
Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) return of
less than 90 percent.
(b) Selection Process.--
(1) Limitation on acceptance of application.--Before
accepting application for grants under any discretionary
program for which
[[Page H1978]]
funds are authorized to be appropriated from the Highway
Trust Fund (including the Mass Transit Account) by this Act
(including the amendments made by this Act), the Secretary
shall publish the criteria established under subsection (a).
Such publication shall identify all statutory criteria and
any criteria established by regulation that will apply to
such program.
(2) Explanation.--At least 14 days before making a grant
under a discretionary program described in paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall transmit to the respective committees of the
House of Representatives and the Senate having jurisdiction
over such program, and shall publish, an explanation of how
projects will be selected based on the criteria established
for such program under subsection (a).
(c) Minimum Programs.--At a minimum the criteria
established under subsection (a) and the process established
by subsection (b) shall apply to the following programs:
(1) The high cost Interstate System reconstruction and
improvement program.
(2) The research program under title VI of this Act.
(3) The national corridor planning and development program.
(4) The coordinated border infrastructure and safety
program.
(5) The construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal
facilities.
(6) The scenic byway program.
(7) The discretionary bridge program.
(8) New fixed guideway systems and extensions to existing
fixed guideway systems under section 5309 of title 49, United
States Code.
(9) Transit research and planning.
SEC. 507. ELIMINATION OF REGIONAL OFFICE RESPONSIBILITIES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall eliminate any
programmatic responsibility of the regional offices of the
Federal Highway Administration as part of the
Administration's efforts to restructure its field
organization, including elimination of regional offices,
creation of technical resource centers, and maximum
delegation of authority to its State offices.
(b) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall transmit to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a detailed implementation plan not
later than September 30, 1998, and thereafter provide
periodic progress reports to such Committees.
(c) Implementation.--The Secretary shall begin
implementation of the plan transmitted under subsection (b)
not later than December 31, 1998.
SEC. 508. AUTHORITY FOR CONGRESS TO MAKE MIDCOURSE
CORRECTIONS TO THE HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT
PROGRAMS.
The Secretary shall not apportion or allocate, prior to
August 1, 2001, any funds authorized to be appropriated or
made available for fiscal year 2001 under title 23, United
States Code (other than sections 125 and 157 and amounts
necessary for the administration of the Federal Highway
Administration under section 104(a)), title I and VI of
this Act (other than section 127(b)), section 31104(a) of
title 49, United States Code, section 5338 of title 49,
United States Code (other than amounts necessary for the
administration of the Federal Transit Administration), and
title III of this Act, unless a law has been enacted
making midcourse corrections to the Federal-aid highway
and transit programs authorized by this Act (including
amendments made by this Act) which would, at a minimum--
(1) approve a funding distribution for and any
modifications to the high-cost interstate reconstruction and
improvement program;
(2) approve a proposed system of performance bonuses to
States pursuant to the bonus program established under
section 123 of this Act;
(3) approve a cost estimate for States as part of the
Appalachian development highway system program;
(4) make any other appropriate programmatic changes and
recommendations made to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committees on Environment and Public Works and Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate;
(5) approve projects under the capital program for final
design and construction of a new fixed guideway system or
extension of an existing fixed guideway system; and
(6) include a certification that such law meets the
requirements of this section.
TITLE VI--TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
SEC. 601. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 23, UNITED STATES CODE.
Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this
title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision of
law, the reference shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of title 23, United States Code.
SEC. 602. APPLICABILITY OF TITLE 23.
Funds made available by subparagraphs (F) through (I) of
section 127(a)(3) of this Act shall be available for
obligation in the same manner as if such funds were
apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code,
except that the Federal share payable for a project or
activity carried out using such funds shall be determined by
the Secretary (unless otherwise expressly provided by this
Act) and such funds shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 603. TRANSFERS OF FUNDS.
The Secretary may transfer not to exceed 10 percent of the
amounts made available by each of subparagraphs (F) through
(I) of section 127(a)(3) of this Act to the amounts made
available by any other of such subparagraphs.
Subtitle A--Surface Transportation Research, Technology, and Education
PART I--HIGHWAY RESEARCH
SEC. 611. RESEARCH.
(a) Research.--Section 307(a) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Amounts deposited by cooperating organizations and
persons.--There shall be available to the Secretary for
carrying out this subsection such funds as may be deposited
by any cooperating organization or person in a special
account of the Treasury of the United States established for
such purpose.''.
(b) Long-Term Pavement Performance.--Section 307(b)(2) is
amended to read as follows:
``(2) Long-term pavement performance.--
``(A) In general.--As part of the highway research program
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall carry out a long-
term pavement performance program to continue to completion
the long-term pavement performance tests initiated under the
strategic highway research program.
``(B) Grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.--In
carrying out subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall make
grants and enter into cooperative agreements and contracts
for the following purposes:
``(i) To continue the monitoring, material-testing, and
evaluation of the highway test sections established under the
long-term pavement performance program.
``(ii) To carry out analyses of the data collected under
the program.
``(iii) To prepare the products required to fulfill the
original objectives of the program and to meet future
pavement technology needs.''.
(c) Advanced Research.--Section 307(b)(4) is amended to
read as follows:
``(4) Advanced research.--
``(A) In general.--The highway research program under
subsection (a) shall include an advanced research program
that addresses longer-term, higher-risk research that shows
potential benefits for improving the durability, efficiency,
environmental impact, productivity, and safety (including
bicycle and pedestrian safety) of highway and intermodal
transportation systems. In carrying out this program, the
Secretary shall strive to develop partnerships with the
public and private sectors.
``(B) Research areas.--In carrying out the advanced
research program under subparagraph (A), the Secretary may
make grants and enter into cooperative agreements and
contracts in such areas as the Secretary determines
appropriate, including the following:
``(i) Characterization of materials used in highway
infrastructure, including analytical techniques,
microstructure modeling, and the deterioration processes.
``(ii) Diagnostics for evaluation of the condition of
bridge and pavement structures to enable assessment of
failure risks.
``(iii) Design and construction details for composite
structures.
``(iv) Safety technology based problems in the areas of
pedestrian and bicycle safety, roadside hazards, and
composite materials for roadside safety hardware.
``(v) Particulate matter source apportionment, control
strategy synthesis evaluation, and model development.
``(vi) Data acquisition techniques for system condition and
performance monitoring.
``(vii) Prediction of the response of current and future
travelers to new technologies.''.
(d) Supporting Infrastructure.--Section 307(b)(5) is
amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).
(e) Repeals.--Section 307 is amended--
(1) by striking subsections (c), (d), and (e); and
(2) by redesignating subsections (f), (g), and (h) as
subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively.
(f) Seismic Research Program.--Section 307(c), as so
redesignated, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
program to study the vulnerability of the Federal-aid highway
system and other surface transportation systems to seismic
activity and to develop and implement cost-effective methods
to reduce such vulnerability.'';
(2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) Funding.--Of the amounts made available to carry out
this section, the Secretary shall expend not more than
$2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to
carry out this subsection, of which up to $2,500,000 may be
used to upgrade earthquake simulation facilities as required
to carry out the program.''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (5).
(g) Biennial Report.--Section 307(e), as so redesignated,
is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``Biennial
Report.--The Secretary''; and
(2) by inserting after ``highway needs'' the following: ``,
as well as the backlog of current highway needs,''.
(h) Recycled Materials Research Program.--Section 307 is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Recycled Materials Research Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a program of
research to determine--
``(A) the performance of asphalt pavement containing tire-
derived carbonous asphalt modifiers under various climate and
use conditions; and
``(B) the degree to which asphalt pavement containing tire-
derived carbonous asphalt modifiers can be recycled.
``(2) Date of completion.--The Secretary shall complete the
research program under this subsection not later than 3 years
after the date of the enactment of the Building Efficient
Surface Transportation and Equity Act of 1998.''.
[[Page H1979]]
(i) Conforming Amendments.--Chapter 3 is amended--
(1) in the heading to section 307 by striking ``and
planning''; and
(2) in the table of sections for such chapter by striking
the item relating to section 307 and inserting the following:
``307. Research.''.
SEC. 612. STATE PLANNING AND RESEARCH.
(a) In General.--Chapter 3 is amended by inserting after
section 312 the following:
``Sec. 313. State planning and research
``(a) General Rule.--Two percent of the sums apportioned
for each fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1997,
under section 104 (other than sections 104(f) and 104(h)) and
under section 144 shall be available for expenditure by the
State, in consultation with the Secretary, only for the
following purposes:
``(1) Engineering and economic surveys and investigations.
``(2) The planning of future highway programs and local
public transportation systems and the planning of the
financing of such programs and systems, including statewide
planning under section 135.
``(3) Development and implementation of management systems
under section 303.
``(4) Studies of the economy, safety, and convenience of
highway usage and the desirable regulation and equitable
taxation thereof.
``(5) Research, development, and technology transfer
activities necessary in connection with the planning, design,
construction, management, and maintenance of highway, public
transportation, and intermodal transportation systems and
study, research, and training on the engineering standards
and construction materials for such systems, including the
evaluation and accreditation of inspection and testing and
the regulation and taxation of their use.
``(b) Minimum Expenditures on Research, Development, and
Technology Transfer Activities.--Not less than 25 percent of
the funds which are apportioned to a State for a fiscal year
and are subject to subsection (a) shall be expended by the
State for research, development, and technology transfer
activities described in subsection (a) relating to highway,
public transportation, and intermodal transportation systems
unless the State certifies to the Secretary for such fiscal
year that total expenditures by the State for transportation
planning under sections 134 and 135 will exceed 75 percent of
the amount of such funds and the Secretary accepts such
certification. Funds used for research provided under this
subsection are not subject to an assessment under the Small
Business Research and Development Enhancement Act of 1992
(Public Law 102-564).
``(c) Federal Share.--The Federal share payable on account
of any project financed with funds which are subject to
subsection (a) shall be 80 percent unless the Secretary
determines that the interests of the Federal-aid highway
program would be best served by decreasing or eliminating the
non-Federal share.
``(d) Administration of Sums.--Funds which are subject to
subsection (a) shall be combined and administered by the
Secretary as a single fund which shall be available for
obligation for the same period as funds apportioned under
section 104(b)(1).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 3 is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 312 the following:
``313. State planning and research.''.
(c) Highway Noise Research Center.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with a
university with an ongoing program relating to noise control
and acoustics research, shall carry out research on methods
to reduce highway noise.
(2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 1999 through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(H) of
this Act, $1,000,000 per fiscal year shall be available to
carry out this subsection.
SEC. 613. INTERNATIONAL HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION OUTREACH
PROGRAM.
(a) Activities.--Section 325(a) is amended--
(1) by inserting after ``expertise'' the following: ``,
goods, and services'';
(2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) gathering and disseminating information on foreign
transportation markets and industries.''.
(b) Funds.--Section 325(c) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Funds.--Funds available to carry out this section
shall include funds deposited by any cooperating organization
or person in a special account for such purpose with the
Secretary of the Treasury. The funds deposited in the special
account and other funds available to carry out this section
shall be available to cover the cost of any activity eligible
under this section, including the cost of promotional
materials, travel, reception and representation expenses, and
salaries and benefits. Reimbursements for salaries and
benefits of Department of Transportation employees providing
services under this section shall be credited to the special
account.''.
(c) Eligibility.--Section 325 is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(d) Eligible Use of State Planning and Research Funds.--A
State, in coordination with the Secretary, may obligate funds
made available to carry out section 313 for any activity
authorized under subsection (a).''.
PART II--TRANSPORTATION EDUCATION, PROFESSIONAL TRAINING, AND
TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT
SEC. 621. NATIONAL HIGHWAY INSTITUTE.
Section 321 is amended by striking subsection (f) and
redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (f).
SEC. 622. NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT INITIATIVE.
(a) In General.--Chapter 3 is further amended by inserting
after section 321 the following:
``Sec. 322. National technology deployment initiative
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop and
implement a national technology deployment initiative to
expand adoption by the surface transportation community of
innovative technologies to improve the safety, efficiency,
reliability, service life, and sustainability of
transportation systems and to reduce environmental impact.
``(b) Integration With Other Programs.--The Secretary shall
integrate activities undertaken pursuant to this section with
the efforts of the Department to disseminate the results of
research sponsored by the Department and to facilitate
technology transfer.
``(c) Leveraging of Federal Resources.--In selecting
projects to be carried out under this section, the Secretary
shall give preference to projects that leverage Federal funds
with other significant public or private resources.
``(d) Grants, Contracts, and Cooperative Agreements.--The
Secretary may carry out this section either independently or
in cooperation with other Federal departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities or by making grants to, or entering into
contracts, cooperative agreements, or other transactions with
any State or local agency, authority, association,
institution, corporation (for-profit or nonprofit),
organization, or person.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 3 is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 321 the following:
``322. National technology deployment initiative.''.
SEC. 623. EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.
(a) Local Technical Assistance Program.--Section 326(a) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Authority'' and inserting ``Local
Technical Assistance Program''; and
(2) by striking ``transportation assistance program'' and
inserting ``local technical assistance program''.
(b) Research Fellowships.--Section 326 is further amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c);
(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Research Fellowships.--
``(1) General authority.--The Secretary may, acting either
independently or in cooperation with other Federal
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities, make grants for
research fellowships for any purpose for which research is
authorized by this section.
``(2) Dwight david eisenhower transportation fellowship
program.--The Secretary shall establish and implement a
transportation research fellowship program for the purpose of
attracting qualified students to the field of transportation.
Such program shall be known as the `Dwight David Eisenhower
Transportation Fellowship Program'.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Chapter 3 is amended--
(1) in the heading to section 326 by striking ``program''
and inserting ``programs''; and
(2) in the table of sections for such chapter by striking
the item relating to section 326 and inserting the following:
``326. Education and training programs.''.
SEC. 624. UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH.
(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 55 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 5505. University transportation research
``(a) Regional Centers.--The Secretary of Transportation
shall make grants to nonprofit institutions of higher
learning to establish and operate 1 university transportation
center in each of the 10 United States Government regions
that comprise the Standard Federal Regional Boundary System.
``(b) Other Centers.--The Secretary shall make grants to
nonprofit institutions of higher learning to establish and
operate 10 university transportation centers, in addition to
the centers receiving grants under subsection (a), to address
transportation management and research and development, with
special attention to increasing the number of highly skilled
individuals entering the field of transportation.
``(c) Selection of Grant Recipients.--
``(1) Applications.--In order to be eligible to receive a
grant under this section, a nonprofit institution of higher
learning shall submit to the Secretary an application that is
in such form and contains such information as the Secretary
may require.
``(2) Selection criteria.--The Secretary shall select each
recipient of a grant under this section through a competitive
process on the basis of the following:
``(A) For regional centers, the location of the center
within the Federal region to be served.
``(B) The demonstrated research and extension resources
available to the recipient to carry out this section.
``(C) The capability of the recipient to provide leadership
in making national and regional contributions to the solution
of immediate and long-range transportation problems.
``(D) The recipient's establishment of a surface
transportation program encompassing several modes of
transportation.
``(E) The recipient's demonstrated commitment of at least
$200,000 in regularly budgeted institutional amounts each
year to support ongoing
[[Page H1980]]
transportation research and education programs.
``(F) The recipient's demonstrated ability to disseminate
results of transportation research and education programs
through a statewide or regionwide continuing education
program.
``(G) The strategic plan the recipient proposes to carry
out under the grant.
``(d) Objectives.--Each university transportation center
receiving a grant under this section shall conduct the
following programs and activities:
``(1) Basic and applied research, the products of which are
judged by peers or other experts in the field to advance the
body of knowledge in transportation.
``(2) An education program that includes multidisciplinary
course work and participation in research.
``(3) An ongoing program of technology transfer that makes
research results available to potential users in a form that
can be implemented, utilized, or otherwise applied.
``(e) Maintenance of Effort.--In order to be eligible to
receive a grant under this section, a recipient shall enter
into an agreement with the Secretary to ensure that the
recipient will maintain total expenditures from all other
sources to establish and operate a university transportation
center and related research activities at a level at least
equal to the average level of such expenditures in its 2
fiscal years prior to award of a grant under this section.
``(f) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the costs of
activities carried out using a grant made under this section
is 50 percent of costs. The non-Federal share may include
funds provided to a recipient under section 5307 or 5311 of
this title or section 313, 322, or 326(a) of title 23, United
States Code.
``(g) Program Coordination.--
``(1) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate the
research, education, training, and technology transfer
activities that grant recipients carry out under this
section, disseminate the results of the research, and
establish and operate a clearinghouse.
``(2) Annual review and evaluation.--At least annually, the
Secretary shall review and evaluate programs the grant
recipients carry out.
``(3) Funding limitation.--The Secretary may use not more
than 1 percent of amounts made available from Government
sources to carry out this subsection.
``(h) Limitation on Availability of Funds.--Funds made
available to carry out this program shall remain available
for obligation for a period of 2 years after the last day of
the fiscal year for which such funds are authorized.
``(i) Special Rule for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999.--
``(1) In general.--In carrying out subsections (a) and (b)
in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, the Secretary shall make
grants to each university transportation center and
university research institute that received a grant in fiscal
year 1997 under section 5316 or 5317 of this title, as in
effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this
section.
``(2) Terms and conditions.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, grants made pursuant to paragraph
(1) in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 shall be subject to the
same terms and conditions as the fiscal year 1997 grants
referred to in paragraph (1); except that the university
research institutes at San Jose State University, North
Carolina A&T State University, and the University of South
Florida shall each receive $1,000,000 in grants under
paragraph (1) in each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
``(j) University Research Institutes.--Any university
research institute that received a grant under section 5316
of this title, as in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of this section, shall be eligible to receive
grants made available to university transportation centers
under this section.
``(k) Applications That May Be Considered.--In selecting
grant recipients under subsection (b), the Secretary shall
consider at a minimum applications submitted by the
following:
``(1) Any university transportation center or university
research institute described in subsection (i)(1).
``(2) The University of Denver and Mississippi State
University.
``(3) The University of Arizona.
``(4) The University of Central Florida.
``(5) Carnegie Mellon and Lehigh Universities.
``(6) University of Southern California and California
State University at Long Beach.
``(7) Pace University.
``(8) A consortium of historically black colleges in
Alabama.
``(9) Lawson State Community College.
``(10) A consortium consisting of the University of
Wisconsin, the University of Illinois, and Purdue University.
``(11) The University of New Hampshire.
``(12) A consortium consisting of George Mason University,
along with the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech
University.
``(13) The University of Tennessee.
``(14) The Alabama Transportation Institute.
``(15) A consortium consisting of Columbia University, City
University of New York, Manhattan College, and New Jersey
Institute of Technology.
``(16) Maritime College of the State University of New
York.
``(17) University of New Orleans.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 55 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 5504 the
following:
``5505. University transportation research.''.
(c) Appalachian Transportation Institute.--
(1) Grants.--The Secretary shall make grants under section
5505 of title 49, United States Code, to Marshall University,
West Virginia, on behalf of a consortium which also may
include West Virginia University Institute of Technology, the
College of West Virginia, and Bluefield State College to
establish and operate an Appalachian Transportation
Institute. Such institute shall conduct research, training,
technology transfer, and other transportation related
activities in the development and enhancement of
transportation systems in the Appalachian region, including
the Appalachian Development Highway System.
(2) Funding.--Of amounts made available to carry out such
section 5505, $2,000,000 shall be available for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to carry out paragraph (1).
(3) Federal share.--The Federal share payable for the costs
of the institute referred to in paragraph (1) shall be 80
percent; except that the non-Federal interest shall receive
credit for the reasonable cost associated with the
establishment and administration of the institute referred to
in paragraph (1).
(d) ITS Institute.--
(1) Grants.--The Secretary shall make grants under section
5505 of title 49, United States Code, to the University of
Minnesota to continue to operate and expand the ITS
Institute. The ITS Institute shall continue to conduct
research, education, and development activities that focus on
transportation management, enhanced safety, human factors,
and reduced environmental effects. The ITS Institute shall
develop new or expanded programs to address emerging issues
of ITS related to transportation policy, intermodalism,
sustainable community development, and transportation
telematics.
(2) Funding.--Of amounts made available to carry out such
section 5505, $2,000,000 shall be available for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to carry out paragraph (1).
(3) Federal share.--The Federal share payable for the costs
of the institute referred to in paragraph (1) shall be 80
percent; except that the non-Federal interest shall receive
credit for the reasonable cost associated with the
establishment and administration of the institute referred to
in paragraph (1).
SEC. 625. FUNDING ALLOCATIONS.
Of the amounts made available for each of fiscal years 1998
through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(G) of this Act--
(1) not to exceed $8,000,000 per fiscal year shall be
available for the National Highway Institute under section
321 of title 23, United States Code;
(2) not to exceed $10,000,000 per fiscal year shall be
available for the local technical assistance program under
section 326(a) of such title;
(3) not to exceed $2,000,000 per fiscal year shall be
available for the Dwight D. Eisenhower Transportation
Fellowship Program under section 326(b) of such title;
(4) not to exceed $14,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998
and 1999 and $19,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000
through 2003 shall be available for the national technology
deployment initiative program under section 322 of such
title; and
(5) not to exceed $17,750,000 per fiscal year shall be
available for university transportation centers under section
5505 of title 49, United States Code.
PART III--BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS AND MISCELLANEOUS
PROGRAMS
SEC. 631. BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS.
(a) In General.--Section 111 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking the second sentence of subsection (b)(4);
(2) in subsection (c)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (J) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (K) by striking the period and
inserting ``; and'' ; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(L) transportation-related variables influencing global
competitiveness.'';
(3) in subsection (c)(2)--
(A) by striking ``national transportation system'' in the
first sentence and inserting ``Nation's transportation
systems'';
(B) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) be coordinated with efforts to measure outputs and
outcomes of the Department of Transportation and the Nation's
transportation systems under the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 (107 Stat. 285 et seq.);''; and
(C) in subparagraph (C) by inserting ``, made relevant to
the States and metropolitan planning organizations,'' after
``accuracy'';
(4) in subsection (c)(3) by adding at the end the
following: ``The Bureau shall review and report to the
Secretary of Transportation on the sources and reliability of
the statistics proposed by the heads of the operating
administrations of the Department to measure outputs and
outcomes as required by the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 (107 Stat. 285 et seq.), and shall
undertake such other reviews as may be requested by the
Secretary.'';
(5) in subsection (c) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Supporting transportation decisionmaking.--Ensuring
that the statistics compiled under paragraph (1) are relevant
for transportation decisions by Federal, State, and local
governments, transportation-related associations, private
businesses, and consumers.'';
(6) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as
subsections (h), (i) and (j), respectively;
(7) by striking subsection (g); and
(8) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Intermodal Transportation Data Base.--The Director
shall establish and maintain an intermodal transportation
data base. The data base shall be suitable for analyses
conducted by the Federal Government, the States,
[[Page H1981]]
and metropolitan planning organizations. The data base shall
include, at a minimum--
``(1) information on the volumes and patterns of movement
of goods, including local, interregional, and international
movements, by all modes of transportation and intermodal
combinations, and by relevant classification;
``(2) information on the volumes and patterns of movement
of people, including local, interregional, and international
movements, by all modes of transportation and intermodal
combinations, and by relevant classification; and
``(3) information on the location and connectivity of
transportation facilities and services and a national
accounting of expenditures and capital stocks on each mode of
transportation and intermodal combinations.
``(e) National Transportation Library.--The Director shall
establish and maintain a national transportation library
containing a collection of statistical and other information
needed for transportation decisionmaking at the Federal,
State, and local levels.
``(f) National Transportation Atlas Data Base.--The
Director shall develop and maintain geographic data bases
depicting transportation networks; flows of people, goods,
vehicles, and craft over those networks; and social,
economic, and environmental conditions affecting or affected
by those networks. These data bases shall be able to support
intermodal network analysis.
``(g) Research and Development Grants.--The Secretary may
make grants to, or enter into cooperative agreements or
contracts with, public and nonprofit private entities to
support the programs and activities of the Bureau.'';
(9) by striking subsection (i), as so redesignated, and
inserting the following:
``(i) Prohibition on Certain Disclosures.--
``(1) Information obtained under long-term data collection
program.--An officer or employee of the Bureau may not--
``(A) make any publication in which the data furnished by
an individual or organization under paragraph (c)(2) can be
identified;
``(B) use the information furnished under the provisions of
subsection (c)(2) for a nonstatistical purpose; or
``(C) permit anyone other than the individuals authorized
by the Director to examine individual reports furnished under
subsection (c)(2).
``(2) Copies of reports.--No department, bureau, agency,
officer, or employee of the United States, except the
Director in carrying out the purpose of this section, shall
require, for any reason, copies of reports which have been
filed under subsection (c)(2) with the Bureau or retained by
any individual respondent. Copies of such reports which have
been so retained or filed with the Bureau or any of its
employees, contractors, or agents shall be immune from legal
process, and shall not, without the consent of the individual
concerned, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in
any action, suit, or other judicial or administrative
proceeding. This paragraph shall only apply to information
that permits information concerning an individual or
organization to be reasonable inferred by direct or indirect
means.
``(3) Collection of data for nonstatistical purposes.--In a
case in which the Bureau is authorized by statute to collect
data or information for nonstatistical purposes, the Director
shall clearly distinguish the collection of such data or
information by rule, and on the collection instrument, to
inform a respondent requested or required to supply the data
or information of the nonstatistical purposes.''; and
(10) by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Data Product Sales Proceeds.--Notwithstanding section
3302 of title 31, United States Code, funds received by the
Bureau from the sale of data products may be credited to the
Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) and
shall be available for the purpose of reimbursing the Bureau
for such expenses.
``(l) Funding.--
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than
the Mass Transit Account) $31,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 1998 through 2003 to carry out this section, except
that amounts for activities under subsection (g) may not
exceed $500,000 in any fiscal year. Amounts made available
under this subsection shall remain available for a period of
3 fiscal years.
``(2) Applicability of title 23.--Funds authorized by this
subsection shall be available for obligation in the same
manner as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5503 of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (d); and
(2) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), and (g) as
subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively.
SEC. 632. TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a
transportation technology innovation and demonstration
program in accordance with the requirements of this section.
(b) Contents of Program.--
(1) Use of concrete pavement.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct research on
improved methods of using concrete pavement in the
construction, reconstruction, and repair of Federal-aid
highways.
(B) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(H) of
this Act, $10,000,000 per fiscal year shall be available to
carry out this paragraph.
(2) Motor vehicle safety warning system.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall expand and continue
the study authorized by section 358(c) of the National
Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (23 U.S.C. 401 note;
109 Stat. 625) relating to the development of a motor vehicle
safety warning system and shall conduct tests of such system.
(B) Grants.--In carrying out this paragraph, the Secretary
may make grants to State and local governments.
(C) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2000 by section 127(a)(3)(H) of
this Act, $700,000 per fiscal year shall be available to
carry out this paragraph.
(3) Steel bridge construction.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants for
research and construction to improve and demonstrate the use
of steel bridge construction.
(B) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(H) of
this Act, $10,000,000 per fiscal year shall be available to
carry out this paragraph.
(C) Federal share.--The Federal share payable on account of
construction activities carried out using a grant made under
this paragraph shall be 80 percent of the cost of such
activities.
(4) Use of asphalt pavement.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct research on
improved methods of using asphalt pavement in the
construction, reconstruction, and repair of Federal-aid
highways.
(B) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(H) of
this Act, $10,000,000 per fiscal year shall be available to
carry out this paragraph.
(5) Use of hazardous materials monitoring systems.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct research on
improved methods of deploying and integrating existing ITS
projects to include hazardous materials monitoring systems
across various modes of transportation.
(B) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(I) of
this Act, $1,500,000 per fiscal year shall be available to
carry out this paragraph.
(6) Motor carrier advanced sensor control system.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct research on
the deployment of a system of advanced sensors and signal
processors in trucks and tractor trailers to determine axle
and wheel alignment, monitor collision alarm, check tire
pressure and tire balance conditions, measure and detect load
distribution in the vehicle, and monitor and adjust automatic
braking systems.
(B) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(I) of
this Act, $700,000 per fiscal year shall be available to
carry out this paragraph.
(7) Outreach and technology transfer activities.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall continue to support
the Urban Consortium's ITS outreach and technology transfer
activities.
(B) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(H) of
this Act, $500,000 per fiscal year shall be available to
carry out this paragraph.
(8) Transportation economic and land use system.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall continue development
and deployment through the New Jersey Institute of Technology
to metropolitan planning organizations of the Transportation
Economic and Land Use System.
(B) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(H) of
this Act, $1,000,000 per fiscal year shall be available to
carry out this paragraph.
(9) Great lakes its implementation.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to the
State of Wisconsin to continue ITS activities in the corridor
serving the Greater Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Chicago, Illinois,
and Gary, Indiana, areas initiated under the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
(B) Funding.--Of the amounts allocated for each of fiscal
years 1998 through 2003 under section 657(a) of this Act,
$2,000,000 per fiscal year shall be available to carry out
this paragraph.
(10) Northeast its implementation.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to the
States to continue ITS activities in the Interstate Route I-
95 corridor in the northeastern United States initiated under
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991.
(B) Funding.--Of the amounts allocated for each of fiscal
years 1998 through 2003 under section 657(a) of this Act,
$5,000,000 per fiscal year shall be available to carry out
this paragraph.
(11) Composite materials.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct research in
the use of composite materials for guardrails and bridge
decking.
(B) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(F) of
this Act, $700,000 per fiscal year shall be available to
carry out this paragraph.
(12) Intelligent transportation infrastructure.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a program to
advance the deployment of an operational intelligent
transportation infrastructure system for the measurement of
various transportation system activities to aid in the
transportation planning and analysis while making a
significant contribution to the ITS program under this title.
This program shall be located in the 2 largest metropolitan
areas in the State of Pennsylvania.
(B) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(H) of
this Act, $1,700,000 per fiscal year shall be available to
carry out this paragraph.
[[Page H1982]]
(C) Federal share.--The Federal share payable on account of
the program carried out under this paragraph shall be 80
percent of the cost of such program.
(13) Corrosion control and prevention.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make a grant to
conduct a study on the costs and benefits of corrosion
control and prevention. The study shall be conducted in
conjunction with an interdisciplinary team of experts from
the fields of metallurgy, chemistry, economics, and others,
as appropriate. Not later than September 30, 2001, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the study
results, together with any recommendations.
(B) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 1999 and 2000 by section 127(a)(3)(H) of this
Act, $500,000 per fiscal year shall be available to carry out
this paragraph.
(14) Recycled materials.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to the
University of New Hampshire to continue research on the use
of recycled materials in the construction of transportation
projects.
(B) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 1999 through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(F) of
this Act, $1,000,000 per fiscal year shall be available to
carry out this paragraph.
(15) Translink.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to the
Texas Transportation Institute to continue the Translink
Research program.
(B) Funding.--Of the amounts allocated for each of fiscal
years 1999 through 2001 under section 657(a) of this Act,
$1,300,000 per fiscal year shall be available to carry out
this paragraph.
(16) Fundamental properties of asphalts and modified
asphalts.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall continue to carry out
section 6016 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991. Additional areas of the program under
such section shall be asphalt-water interaction studies and
asphalt-aggregate thin film behavior studies.
(B) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 1999 through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(F) of
this Act, $3,000,000 per fiscal year shall be available to
carry out this paragraph.
(17) National center for transportation management,
research, and development.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to design,
develop, and implement research, training, and technology
transfer activities to increase the number of highly skilled
minority individuals and women entering the transportation
workforce. The grant recipient shall be an institution with a
predominantly minority student population, a dedicated
graduate degree program in transportation studies, and a
demonstrated record for at least 5 years in pursuing the
objectives for which grants are authorized by this
subparagraph.
(B) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section
127(a)(3)(H) of this Act, $1,000,000 shall be available to
carry out this paragraph for fiscal year 2000, $1,250,000 for
fiscal year 2001, $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2002, and
$1,750,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(18) Infrastructure technology institute.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to study
techniques to evaluate and monitor infrastructure conditions,
to improve information systems for infrastructure
construction and management, and to study advanced materials
and automated processes for constructing and rehabilitating
public works facilities. The recipient shall be an
institution with a demonstrated record for at least 5 years
in pursuing the objectives for which grants are authorized by
this subparagraph.
(B) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 2000 through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(H) of
this Act, $3,000,000 per fiscal year shall be available to
carry out this paragraph.
Subtitle B--Intelligent Transportation Systems
SEC. 651. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this subtitle, the following definitions apply:
(1) Intelligent transportation systems; its.--The terms
``intelligent transportation systems'' and ``ITS'' mean
electronics, communications, or information processing used
singly or in combination to improve the efficiency and safety
of surface transportation systems.
(2) Intelligent transportation infrastructure.--The term
``intelligent transportation infrastructure'' means fully
integrated public sector ITS components, as defined by the
Secretary.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Transportation.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given such
term under section 101 of title 23, United States Code.
SEC. 652. SCOPE OF PROGRAM.
(a) Scope.--Subject to the provisions of this subtitle, the
Secretary shall conduct an ongoing ITS program to research,
develop, and operationally test intelligent transportation
systems and advance nationwide deployment of such systems as
a component of the Nation's surface transportation systems.
(b) Goals.--The goals of the ITS program include--
(1) enhancement of surface transportation efficiency to
enable existing facilities to meet a significant portion of
future transportation needs and to reduce regulatory,
financial, and other transaction costs to public agencies and
system users;
(2) enhancement of safe operation of motor vehicles,
including motorcycles, and nonmotorized vehicles on the
Nation's surface transportation systems, with a particular
emphasis on decreasing the number and severity of collisions;
(3) protection and enhancement of the natural environment
and communities affected by surface transportation, with
particular emphasis on assisting States to attain air quality
goals established pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.);
(4) accommodation of the needs of all users of the Nation's
surface transportation systems, including the operators of
commercial vehicles, passenger vehicles, and motorcycles;
(5) improvement of public access to employment, goods, and
services;
(6) development of a technology base and necessary
standards and protocols for intelligent transportation
systems;
(7) improvement of the Nation's ability to respond to
emergencies and natural disasters and enhancement of national
defense mobility; and
(8) promotion of the access and use of data collected from
projects conducted under the program by public and private
organizations.
SEC. 653. GENERAL AUTHORITIES AND REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Cooperation and Consultation Requirements.--
(1) Cooperation with governmental, private, and educational
entities.--The Secretary shall carry out the ITS program in
cooperation with State and local governments and other public
entities, the United States private sector, and colleges and
universities, including historically black colleges and
universities and other minority institutions of higher
education.
(2) Consultation with federal officials.--In carrying out
the ITS program, the Secretary, as appropriate, shall consult
with the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Director of the National Science Foundation, and
the heads of other Federal departments and agencies.
(b) Standards.--
(1) Development of national its architecture.--The
Secretary shall develop, implement, and maintain a national
ITS architecture and standards and protocols to promote the
widespread use and evaluation of ITS technology as a
component of the Nation's surface transportation systems.
(2) Interoperability among its technologies.--The national
ITS architecture shall promote interoperability among ITS
technologies implemented throughout the States.
(3) Use of services of standards-setting organizations.--In
carrying out this subsection, the Secretary may use the
services of standards-setting organizations.
(4) Establishment of dedicated short-range vehicle to
wayside wireless standard.--In carrying out this subsection,
the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of
Commerce, the Secretary of Defense, and the Federal
Communications Commission, shall take such actions as may be
necessary to secure the necessary spectrum for the near-term
establishment of a dedicated short-range vehicle to wayside
wireless standard.
(c) Evaluations.--
(1) Guidelines and requirements.--The Secretary shall issue
guidelines and requirements for the evaluation of field and
related operational tests carried out under section 655 of
this Act.
(2) Objectivity and independence.--The guidelines and
requirements issued under paragraph (1) shall include
provisions to ensure the objectivity and independence of the
evaluator and to avoid any real or apparent conflict of
interest or potential influence on the outcome by parties to
the tests or any other formal evaluation conducted under this
subtitle.
(d) Information Clearinghouse.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and
maintain a repository for technical and safety data collected
as a result of federally-sponsored projects under this
subtitle and shall make, upon request, such information
(except for proprietary information and data) readily
available to all users of the repository at an appropriate
cost.
(2) Delegation of authority.--The Secretary may delegate
the responsibility of the Secretary under this subsection,
with continuing oversight by the Secretary, to an appropriate
entity that is not within the Department of Transportation.
Any entity to which such responsibility is delegated shall be
eligible for Federal assistance under this subtitle.
(e) Advisory Committees.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may utilize 1 or more
advisory committees in carrying out this subtitle.
(2) Applicability of federal advisory committee act.--Any
advisory committee utilized under this subsection shall be
subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.,
86 Stat. 770).
(3) Funding.--Funding provided for an advisory committee
utilized under this subsection shall be available from moneys
appropriated for advisory committees as specified in relevant
appropriations Acts and from funds allocated for research,
development, and implementation activities in connection with
the ITS program.
(f) Conformity With Standards.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that ITS
projects carried out using funds made available out of the
Highway Trust Fund conform to the national ITS architecture
and standards and protocols developed under subsection (b).
(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to projects
carried out using funds authorized for specific research
objectives in the National ITS Program Plan under section 654
of this Act.
(g) Life-Cycle Cost Analysis.--The Secretary shall require
an analysis of the life-cycle costs of each project carried
out using funds made available under this subtitle, and each
project authorized in section 656 of this Act, for operations
and maintenance of ITS elements,
[[Page H1983]]
where the total initial capital costs of the such elements
exceed $3,000,000.
(h) Procurement Methods.--
(1) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall develop
appropriate technical assistance and guidance to assist State
and local agencies in evaluating and selecting appropriate
methods of procurement for its projects carried out using
funds made available from the Highway Trust Fund, including
innovative and nontraditional methods of procurement.
(2) ITS software.--To the maximum extent practicable,
contracting officials shall use as a critical evaluation
criterion the Software Engineering Institute's Capability
Maturity Model, or another similar recognized standard risk
assessment methodology, to reduce the cost, schedule, and
performance risks associated with the development,
management, and integration of ITS software.
SEC. 654. NATIONAL ITS PROGRAM PLAN.
(a) National ITS Program Plan.--
(1) Updates.--The Secretary shall maintain and update, as
necessary, the National ITS Program Plan developed by the
Department of Transportation and the Intelligent
Transportation Society of America.
(2) Scope.--The National ITS Program Plan shall--
(A) specify the goals, objectives, and milestones for the
deployment of intelligent transportation infrastructure in
the context of major metropolitan areas, smaller metropolitan
and rural areas, and commercial vehicle information systems
and networks;
(B) specify how specific programs and projects relate to
the goals, objectives, and milestones referred to in
subparagraph (A), including consideration of the 5-, 10-, and
20-year timeframes for the goals and objectives;
(C) establish a course of action necessary to achieve the
program's goals and objectives;
(D) provide for the evolutionary development of standards
and protocols to promote and ensure interoperability in the
implementation of ITS technologies; and
(E) establish a cooperative process with State and local
governments for determining desired surface transportation
system performance levels and developing plans for national
incorporation of specific ITS capabilities into surface
transportation systems.
(b) Implementation Reports.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of the enactment of this Act, and biennially
thereafter, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate a report on implementation of the
National ITS Program Plan.
SEC. 655. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND
OPERATIONAL TESTS.
(a) Technical Assistance, Training, and Information.--The
Secretary may provide technical assistance, training, and
information to State and local governments seeking to
implement, operate, maintain, and evaluate ITS technologies
and services.
(b) Transportation Planning.--The Secretary may provide
funding to support adequate consideration of transportation
system management and operations, including ITS, within
metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes.
(c) Research and Operational Tests.--The Secretary may
provide funding for research and operational tests relating
to ITS.
(d) Demonstration and Evaluation of Intelligent Vehicle
Highway Systems.--The Secretary may conduct research and
development activities for the purpose of demonstrating
integrated intelligent vehicle highway systems and roadway
safety systems. Such research shall include state-of-the-art
systems and shall integrate collision avoidance, in-vehicle
information, and other safety related systems (including
infrastructure-based systems). Development work shall
incorporate human factors research findings.
SEC. 656. ITS DEPLOYMENT.
(a) Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure Deployment
Incentives Program.--The Secretary shall conduct a program to
promote the deployment of regionally integrated, intermodal
intelligent transportation systems and, through financial and
technical assistance under this subtitle, shall assist in the
development and implementation of such systems.
(b) Goals.--In accordance with the National ITS Program
Plan under section 654 of this Act, the Secretary shall
provide incentives for the deployment of integrated
applications of intermodal, intelligent transportation
infrastructure and system technologies to--
(1) stimulate sufficient deployment to validate and
accelerate the establishment of national ITS standards and
protocols;
(2) realize the benefits of regionally integrated,
intermodal deployment of intelligent transportation
infrastructure and commercial vehicle operations, including
electronic border crossing applications; and
(3) motivate innovative approaches to overcoming non-
technical constraints or impediments to deployment.
(c) Project Selection.--In order to be eligible for funding
under this section, a project shall--
(1) contribute to national deployment goals and objectives
outlined in the National ITS Program Plan under section 654
of this Act;
(2) demonstrate a strong commitment to cooperation among
agencies, jurisdictions, and the private sector, as evidenced
by signed memorandums of understanding that clearly define
the responsibilities and relation of all parties to a
partnership arrangement, including institutional
relationships and financial agreements needed to support
deployment, and commitment to the criteria provided in
paragraphs (3) through (7);
(3) demonstrate commitment to a comprehensive plan of fully
integrated ITS deployment in accordance with the national ITS
architecture and standards and protocols established under
section 653(b) of this Act;
(4) be part of approved plans and programs developed under
applicable statewide and metropolitan transportation planning
processes and applicable State air quality implementation
plans, as appropriate, at the time Federal funds are sought;
(5) minimize the relative percentage and amount of Federal
contributions under this section to total project costs;
(6) ensure continued, long-term operations and maintenance
without continued reliance on Federal funding under this
subtitle, along with documented evidence of fiscal capacity
and commitment from anticipated public and private sources;
(7) demonstrate technical capacity for effective operations
and maintenance or commitment to acquiring necessary skills;
and
(8) identify the impacts on bicycle and pedestrian
transportation and safety and evaluate options to mitigate
any adverse impacts on bicycle and pedestrian transportation
and safety.
(d) Funding Limitations.--
(1) Projects in metropolitan areas.--Funding under this
section for intelligent transportation infrastructure
projects in metropolitan areas shall be limited to activities
primarily necessary to integrate intelligent transportation
infrastructure elements either deployed or to be deployed
with other sources of funds.
(2) Other projects.--For commercial vehicle projects and
projects outside metropolitan areas, funding provided under
this subtitle may also be used for installation of
intelligent transportation infrastructure elements.
(3) Fiscal year limitations.--Of the amounts made available
to carry out this section in a fiscal year--
(A) not more than $15,000,000 may be used for projects in a
metropolitan area;
(B) not more than $2,000,000 may be used for a project in a
rural area;
(C) not more than $5,000,000 may be used for a commercial
vehicle information system and network project; and
(D) not more than $35,000,000 may be used for projects in a
State.
(4) Priorities.--In providing funding for projects under
this section, the Secretary shall allocate--
(A) not less than 25 percent of the funds made available to
carry out this section to eligible State and local entities
for the implementation of commercial vehicle information
systems and networks, and international border crossing
improvements, in support of public sector commercial vehicle
operations nationwide; and
(B) not less than 10 percent of such funds for other
intelligent transportation infrastructure deployment
activities outside of metropolitan areas.
SEC. 657. FUNDING ALLOCATIONS.
(a) Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure Deployment
Incentives Program.--
(1) Allocation.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(I) of
this Act, $75,000,000 per fiscal year shall be available to
carry out section 656 of this Act.
(2) Use of unallocated amounts.--In addition to amounts
made available by subsection (b), any amounts made available
under paragraph (1) and not allocated by the Secretary for
carrying out section 656 of this Act may be used by the
Secretary for carrying out other activities authorized under
this subtitle.
(b) ITS Research and Program Support Activities.--Of the
amounts made available for each of fiscal years 1998 through
2003 by section 127(a)(3)(I) of this Act, $100,000,000 per
fiscal year shall be available to carry out multi-year
research and technology development initiatives under this
subtitle (other than projects under section 656 of this Act).
(c) Federal Share Payable.--
(1) Intelligent transportation infrastructure deployment
incentives program.--For activities funded with amounts
allocated under subsection (a), the Federal share payable
from such amounts shall not exceed 50 percent of the costs of
the activities, and the total Federal share payable from all
eligible sources (including subsection (a)) shall not exceed
80 percent of the costs of the activities.
(2) Other programs.--For activities funded with amounts
allocated under subsection (b), unless the Secretary
determines otherwise, the Federal share payable on account of
such activities shall not exceed 80 percent of the costs of
the activities.
(3) Long-range activities.--For long-range activities
undertaken in partnership with private entities for the
purposes of section 655(d) of this Act, the Federal share
payable from funds allocated under this subtitle on account
of such activities shall not exceed 50 percent of the costs
of the activities, and the total Federal share payable from
all eligible sources (including subsection (a)) shall not
exceed 80 percent of the costs of the activities.
(4) Participation of other public and private sources.--The
Secretary shall seek maximum participation in the funding of
activities under this subtitle from other public and private
sources, and shall minimize the use of funds provided under
this subtitle for the construction or long-term acquisition
of buildings and grounds.
(d) Advanced Traffic Monitoring and Response Center.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to the
Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, in conjunction with
the Pennsylvania
[[Page H1984]]
Turnpike Commission, to establish an advanced traffic
monitoring and emergency response center at Letterkenny Army
Depot in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. The center shall help
develop and coordinate traffic monitoring and ITS systems on
the entire Pennsylvania Turnpike system and I-81, coordinate
emergency response with State and local governments in the
Central Pennsylvania Region, and conduct research.
(2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2003 by section 127(a)(3)(H) of
this Act, $1,667,000 per fiscal year shall be available to
carry out this subsection.
SEC. 658. GLOBAL POSITIONING SATELLITE DATA.
(a) Moratorium.--Before the last day of the 2-year period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act or the 90th
day after a study has been submitted under subsection (c),
whichever is later, records produced by global positioning
satellite systems shall not be subpoenaed or otherwise used
by the Secretary in enforcement cases to verify compliance
with hours-of-service requirements for employees of motor
carriers.
(b) Exceptions to Moratorium.--Notwithstanding subsection
(a), the Secretary may use such records in a case in which
any of the following conditions exist:
(1) Global positioning satellite systems are a motor
carrier's primary method of maintaining or verifying records
of duty status.
(2) State or Federal safety officials are investigating the
cause of a fatal crash involving a motor carrier.
(3) A motor carrier has an unacceptable safety profile as
determined by the Secretary and the Secretary gives approval
for an examination of the global positioning satellite
records.
In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary may seek
access to data from an information technology provider only
if access to such data cannot be obtained from the motor
carrier.
(c) Independent Assessment.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall contract with an
entity that is independent of the Department of
Transportation to conduct a study to identify, examine, and
evaluate current and future issues and policies related to
government access to data produced by electronic systems for
motor carriers. The entity shall have demonstrated knowledge
about the motor carrier industry, motor carrier safety
regulations, and the electronic information industry.
(2) Inspector general.--The Office of the Inspector General
of the Department of Transportation shall approve the
statement of work of the entity referred to in paragraph (1)
and approve the contract award under paragraph (1). In
carrying out its responsibilities under this paragraph, the
Office of the Inspector General shall perform such overview
and validation or verification of data as may be necessary to
ensure that the study to be conducted under paragraph (1)
meets the requirements of paragraph (1).
(3) Deadline.--The study to be conducted under paragraph
(1) shall be completed not later than 2 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act. A report containing the results
of the study shall be submitted to the Secretary and
Congress.
(4) Funding.--Of amounts made available under section
127(a)(3)(H), $100,000 for fiscal year 1998, $200,000 for
fiscal year 1999, and $200,000 for fiscal year 2000 shall be
available to carry out this subsection.
SEC. 659. REPEAL.
Part B of title VI of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2189-2195) is repealed.
TITLE VII--TRUTH IN BUDGETING
SEC. 701. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (except the Line
Item Veto Act of 1996), the receipts and disbursements of the
Highway Trust Fund established by section 9503 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986--
(1) shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays,
receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--
(A) the budget of the United States Government as submitted
by the President,
(B) the congressional budget (including allocations of
budget authority and outlays provided therein), or
(C) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985; and
(2) shall be exempt from any general budget limitation
imposed by statute on expenditures and net lending (budget
outlays) of the United States Government.
SEC. 702. APPLICABILITY.
This title shall apply to fiscal years beginning after
September 30, 1997.
TITLE VIII--RECREATIONAL BOATING SAFETY PROGRAM
SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Recreational Boating
Safety Improvement Act of 1998''.
SEC. 802. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO RECREATIONAL BOATING SAFETY
PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 13106 of title 46, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``(1)'' and all that follows through the
first sentence and inserting the following: ``Except as
provided in subsection (c) and subject to such amounts as are
provided in appropriations laws, the Secretary may expend for
each fiscal year the amount transferred for such fiscal year
to the Boat Safety Account under section 9503(c)(4) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9503(c)(4)).''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (2); and
(2) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c)(1) Of the amount transferred for each fiscal year to
the Boat Safety Account under section 9503(c)(4) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9503(c)(4))--
``(A) up to two percent is available to the Secretary to
pay the costs of investigations, personnel, and activities
related to administering State recreational boating safety
programs;
``(B) up to two percent is available to the Secretary to
ensure compliance with chapter 43 of this title; and
``(C) up to three percent is available to the Secretary to
establish, operate, and maintain aids to navigation that
promote primarily recreational boating safety.
``(2) Amounts made available by this subsection shall
remain available until expended.''.
(b) Comprehensive Surveys.--Section 13103(c) of title 46,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) The Secretary shall use amounts allocated under this
subsection to conduct and report to the Congress the findings
of a comprehensive survey of recreational boating in the
United States, by not later than December 1 of 1999 and of
every fifth year thereafter. The amount expended for each
survey may not exceed 50 percent of the amounts allocated
under this subsection for the fiscal year in which the survey
is conducted.''.
(c) Requirement To Use State Program Assistance for Certain
Public Access Facilities.--Section 13106 of title 46, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d)(1) The Secretary shall require that of the amount
appropriated for a fiscal year to which this subsection
applies that is allocated and distributed under this chapter
for State recreational boating safety programs, the amount
described in paragraph (2) shall be available only for use
pursuant to subsection (b)(4) for public access facilities
for transient nontrailerable recreational vessels.
``(2) The amount referred to in paragraph (1) is equal to
five percent of the portion of sums appropriated for the
fiscal year to carry out this chapter that is in excess of
$35,000,000.
``(3) This subsection applies to any fiscal year for which
the total amount appropriated to carry out this chapter
exceeds $35,000,000.''.
(d) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect October
1, 1998.
TITLE IX--RAILROADS
SEC. 901. HIGH-SPEED RAIL.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 26104 of
title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (h); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsections:
``(d) Fiscal Year 1998.--(1) There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary $10,000,000 for fiscal year
1998, for carrying out section 26101 (including payment of
administrative expenses related thereto).
``(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, for carrying out
section 26102 (including payment of administrative expenses
related thereto).
``(e) Fiscal Year 1999.--(1) There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary $10,000,000 for fiscal year
1999, for carrying out section 26101 (including payment of
administrative expenses related thereto).
``(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, for carrying out
section 26102 (including payment of administrative expenses
related thereto).
``(f) Fiscal Year 2000.--(1) There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary $10,000,000 for fiscal year
2000, for carrying out section 26101 (including payment of
administrative expenses related thereto).
``(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, for carrying out
section 26102 (including payment of administrative expenses
related thereto).
``(g) Fiscal Year 2001.--(1) There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary $10,000,000 for fiscal year
2001, for carrying out section 26101 (including payment of
administrative expenses related thereto).
``(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, for carrying out
section 26102 (including payment of administrative expenses
related thereto).''.
(b) Definition.--Section 26105(2) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(2) the term `high-speed rail' means all forms of
nonhighway ground transportation that run on rails or
electromagnetic guideways providing transportation service
which is--
``(A) reasonably expected to reach sustained speeds of more
than 125 miles per hour; and
``(B) made available to members of the general public as
passengers,
but does not include rapid transit operations within an urban
area that are not connected to the general rail system of
transportation;''.
SEC. 902. LIGHT DENSITY RAIL LINE PILOT PROJECTS.
(a) Amendment.--Part B of subtitle V of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new chapter:
``CHAPTER 223--LIGHT DENSITY RAIL LINE PILOT PROJECTS
``Sec.
``22301. Light density rail line pilot projects.
``Sec. 22301. Light density rail line pilot projects
``(a) Grants.--The Secretary of Transportation may make
grants to States that have State rail plans described in
section 22102 (1) and (2), to fund pilot projects that
demonstrate the relationship of light density railroad
services
[[Page H1985]]
to the statutory responsibilities of the Secretary, including
those under title 23.
``(b) Limitations.--Grants under this section may be made
only for pilot projects for making capital improvements to,
and rehabilitating, publicly and privately owned rail line
structures, and may not be used for providing operating
assistance.
``(c) Private Owner Contributions.--Grants made under this
section for projects on privately owned rail line structures
shall include contributions by the owner of the rail line
structures, based on the benefit to those structures, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(d) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the
pilot projects carried out with grant assistance under this
section to determine the public interest benefits associated
with the light density railroad networks in the States and
their contribution to a multimodal transportation system. Not
later than March 31, 2003, the Secretary shall report to
Congress any recommendations the Secretary considers
appropriate regarding the eligibility of light density rail
networks for Federal infrastructure financing.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out
this section $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. Such funds shall remain
available until expended.''.
(b) Table of Chapters.--The table of chapters of subtitle V
of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to chapter 221 the following new
item:
``223. LIGHT DENSITY RAIL LINE PILOT PROJECTS..................22301''.
SEC. 903. MIAMI-ORLANDO-TAMPA CORRIDOR PROJECT.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Transportation $200,000,000, to be made available to the
Florida Department of Transportation to reimburse the Florida
Overland Express project in the Miami-Orlando-Tampa corridor
for capital costs of that project. The Florida Department of
Transportation shall deposit funds received under this
section into a separate account which shall, to the extent
not yet required for the purposes of this section, be
invested in United States Treasury securities. Funds
authorized under this section shall not be counted in
calculating the allocation to the State of Florida under
section 111.
SEC. 904. ALASKA RAILROAD.
(a) Grants.--The Secretary may make grants to the Alaska
Railroad for capital rehabilitation of and improvements to
its passenger services.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,250,000 for
each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
SEC. 905. RAILWAY-HIGHWAY CROSSING HAZARD ELIMINATION IN HIGH
SPEED RAIL CORRIDORS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out section
104(d)(2) of title 23, United States Code, $5,250,000 for
each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
SEC. 906. RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING.
(a) Amendments.--Title V of the Railroad Revitalization and
Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 is amended--
(1) by striking sections 501 through 504 and inserting the
following new sections:
``SEC. 501. DEFINITIONS.
``For purposes of this title:
``(1)(A) The term `cost' means the estimated long-term cost
to the Government of a direct loan or loan guarantee,
calculated on a net present value basis, excluding
administrative costs and any incidental effects on
governmental receipts or outlays.
``(B) The cost of a direct loan shall be the net present
value, at the time when the direct loan is disbursed, of the
following cash flows:
``(i) Loan disbursements.
``(ii) Repayments of principal.
``(iii) Payments of interest and other payments by or to
the Government over the life of the loan after adjusting for
estimated defaults, prepayments, fees, penalties, and other
recoveries.
``(C) The cost of a loan guarantee shall be the net present
value when a guaranteed loan is disbursed, of the following
cash flows:
``(i) Estimated payments by the Government to cover
defaults and delinquencies, interest subsidies, or other
payments.
``(ii) Estimated payments to the Government, including
origination and other fees, penalties, and recoveries.
``(D) Any Government action that alters the estimated net
present value of an outstanding direct loan or loan guarantee
(except modifications within the terms of existing contracts
or through other existing authorities) shall be counted as a
change in the cost of that direct loan or loan guarantee. The
calculation of such changes shall be based on the estimated
present value of the direct loan or loan guarantee at the
time of modification.
``(E) In estimating net present values, the discount rate
shall be the average interest rate on marketable Treasury
securities of similar maturity to the direct loan or loan
guarantee for which the estimate is being made.
``(2) The term `direct loan' means a disbursement of funds
by the Government to a non-Federal borrower under a contract
that requires the repayment of such funds. The term includes
the purchase of, or participation in, a loan made by another
lender. The term does not include the acquisition of a
federally guaranteed loan in satisfaction of default claims.
``(3) The term `direct loan obligation' means a binding
agreement by the Secretary to make a direct loan when
specified conditions are fulfilled by the borrower.
``(4) The term `intermodal' means of or relating to the
connection between rail service and other modes of
transportation, including all parts of facilities at which
such connection is made.
``(5) The term `loan guarantee' means any guarantee,
insurance, or other pledge with respect to the payment of all
or a part of the principal or interest on any debt obligation
of a non-Federal borrower to a non-Federal lender, but does
not include the insurance of deposits, shares, or other
withdrawable accounts in financial institutions.
``(6) The term `loan guarantee commitment' means a binding
agreement by the Secretary to make a loan guarantee when
specified conditions are fulfilled by the borrower, the
lender, or any other party to the guarantee agreement.
``SEC. 502. DIRECT LOANS AND LOAN GUARANTEES.
``(a) General Authority.--The Secretary may provide direct
loans and loan guarantees to State and local governments,
government sponsored authorities and corporations, railroads,
and joint ventures that include at least 1 railroad.
``(b) Eligible Purposes.--
``(1) In general.--Direct loans and loan guarantees under
this section shall be used to--
``(A) acquire, improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail
equipment or facilities, including track, components of
track, bridges, yards, buildings, and shops;
``(B) refinance outstanding debt incurred for the purposes
described in subparagraph (A); or
``(C) develop or establish new intermodal or railroad
facilities.
``(2) Operating expenses not eligible.--Direct loans and
loan guarantees under this section shall not be used for
railroad operating expenses.
``(c) Priority Projects.--In granting applications for
direct loans or guaranteed loans under this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to projects that--
``(1) enhance public safety;
``(2) enhance the environment;
``(3) promote economic development;
``(4) enable United States companies to be more competitive
in international markets;
``(5) are endorsed by the plans prepared under section 135
of title 23, United States Code, by the State or States in
which they are located; or
``(6) preserve rail or intermodal service to small
communities or rural areas.
``(d) Extent of Authority.--The aggregate unpaid principal
amounts of obligations under direct loans and loan guarantees
made under this section shall not exceed $5,000,000,000 at
any one time. Of this amount, not less than $1,000,000,000
shall be available solely for projects primarily benefiting
freight railroads other than Class I carriers.
``(e) Rates of Interest.--
``(1) Direct loans.--The Secretary shall require interest
to be paid on a direct loan made under this section at a rate
not less than that necessary to recover the cost of making
the loan.
``(2) Loan guarantees.--The Secretary shall not make a loan
guarantee under this section if the interest rate for the
loan exceeds that which the Secretary determines to be
reasonable, taking into consideration the prevailing interest
rates and customary fees incurred under similar obligations
in the private capital market.
``(f) Infrastructure Partners.--
``(1) Authority of secretary.--In lieu of or in combination
with appropriations of budget authority to cover the costs of
direct loans and loan guarantees as required under section
504(b)(1) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, the
Secretary may accept on behalf of an applicant for assistance
under this section a commitment from a non-Federal source to
fund in whole or in part credit risk premiums with respect to
the loan that is the subject of the application. In no event
shall the aggregate of appropriations of budget authority and
credit risk premiums described in this paragraph with respect
to a direct loan or loan guarantee be less than the cost of
that direct loan or loan guarantee.
``(2) Credit risk premium amount.--The Secretary shall
determine the amount required for credit risk premiums under
this subsection on the basis of--
``(A) the circumstances of the applicant, including the
amount of collateral offered;
``(B) the proposed schedule of loan disbursements;
``(C) historical data on the repayment history of similar
borrowers;
``(D) consultation with the Congressional Budget Office;
and
``(E) any other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
``(3) Payment of premiums.--Credit risk premiums under this
subsection shall be paid to the Secretary before the
disbursement of loan amounts.
``(4) Cohorts of loans.--In order to maintain sufficient
balances of credit risk premiums to adequately protect the
Federal Government from risk of default, while minimizing the
length of time the Government retains possession of those
balances, the Secretary shall establish cohorts of loans.
When all obligations attached to a cohort of loans have been
satisfied, credit risk premiums paid for the cohort, and
interest accrued thereon, which were not used to mitigate
losses shall be returned to the original source on a pro rata
basis.
``(g) Prerequisites for Assistance.--The Secretary shall
not make a direct loan or loan guarantee under this section
unless the Secretary has made a finding in writing that--
``(1) repayment of the obligation is required to be made
within a term of not more than 25 years from the date of its
execution;
``(2) the direct loan or loan guarantee is justified by the
present and probable future demand for rail services or
intermodal facilities;
``(3) the applicant has given reasonable assurances that
the facilities or equipment to be acquired, rehabilitated,
improved, developed, or
[[Page H1986]]
established with the proceeds of the obligation will be
economically and efficiently utilized;
``(4) the obligation can reasonably be repaid, using an
appropriate combination of credit risk premiums and
collateral offered by the applicant to protect the Federal
Government; and
``(5) the purposes of the direct loan or loan guarantee are
consistent with subsection (b).
``(h) Conditions of Assistance.--The Secretary shall,
before granting assistance under this section, require the
applicant to agree to such terms and conditions as are
sufficient, in the judgment of the Secretary, to ensure that,
as long as any principal or interest is due and payable on
such obligation, the applicant, and any railroad or railroad
partner for whose benefit the assistance is intended--
``(1) will not use any funds or assets from railroad or
intermodal operations for purposes not related to such
operations, if such use would impair the ability of the
applicant, railroad, or railroad partner to provide rail or
intermodal services in an efficient and economic manner, or
would adversely affect the ability of the applicant,
railroad, or railroad partner to perform any obligation
entered into by the applicant under this section;
``(2) will, consistent with its capital resources, maintain
its capital program, equipment, facilities, and operations on
a continuing basis; and
``(3) will not make any discretionary dividend payments
that unreasonably conflict with the purposes stated in
subsection (b).
``SEC. 503. ADMINISTRATION OF DIRECT LOANS AND LOAN
GUARANTEES.
``(a) Applications.--The Secretary shall prescribe the form
and contents required of applications for assistance under
section 502, to enable the Secretary to determine the
eligibility of the applicant's proposal, and shall establish
terms and conditions for direct loans and loan guarantees
made under that section.
``(c) Assignment of Loan Guarantees.--The holder of a loan
guarantee made under section 502 may assign the loan
guarantee in whole or in part, subject to such requirements
as the Secretary may prescribe.
``(d) Modifications.--The Secretary may approve the
modification of any term or condition of a direct loan, loan
guarantee, direct loan obligation, or loan guarantee
commitment, including the rate of interest, time of payment
of interest or principal, or security requirements, if the
Secretary finds in writing that--
``(1) the modification is equitable and is in the overall
best interests of the United States; and
``(2) consent has been obtained from the applicant and, in
the case of a loan guarantee or loan guarantee commitment,
the holder of the obligation.
``(e) Compliance.--The Secretary shall assure compliance,
by an applicant, any other party to the loan, and any
railroad or railroad partner for whose benefit assistance is
intended, with the provisions of this title, regulations
issued hereunder, and the terms and conditions of the direct
loan or loan guarantee, including through regular periodic
inspections.
``(f) Commercial Validity.--For purposes of claims by any
party other than the Secretary, a loan guarantee or loan
guarantee commitment shall be conclusive evidence that the
underlying obligation is in compliance with the provisions of
this title, and that such obligation has been approved and is
legal as to principal, interest, and other terms. Such a
guarantee or commitment shall be valid and incontestable in
the hands of a holder thereof, including the original lender
or any other holder, as of the date when the Secretary
granted the application therefor, except as to fraud or
material misrepresentation by such holder.
``(g) Default.--The Secretary shall prescribe regulations
setting forth procedures in the event of default on a loan
made or guaranteed under section 502. The Secretary shall
ensure that each loan guarantee made under that section
contains terms and conditions that provide that--
``(1) if a payment of principal or interest under the loan
is in default for more than 30 days, the Secretary shall pay
to the holder of the obligation, or the holder's agent, the
amount of unpaid guaranteed interest;
``(2) if the default has continued for more than 90 days,
the Secretary shall pay to the holder of the obligation, or
the holder's agent, 90 percent of the unpaid guaranteed
principal;
``(3) after final resolution of the default, through
liquidation or otherwise, the Secretary shall pay to the
holder of the obligation, or the holder's agent, any
remaining amounts guaranteed but which were not recovered
through the default's resolution;
``(4) the Secretary shall not be required to make any
payment under paragraphs (1) through (3) if the Secretary
finds, before the expiration of the periods described in such
paragraphs, that the default has been remedied; and
``(5) the holder of the obligation shall not receive
payment or be entitled to retain payment in a total amount
which, together with all other recoveries (including any
recovery based upon a security interest in equipment or
facilities) exceeds the actual loss of such holder.
``(h) Rights of the Secretary.--
``(1) Subrogation.--If the Secretary makes payment to a
holder, or a holder's agent, under subsection (g) in
connection with a loan guarantee made under section 502, the
Secretary shall be subrogated to all of the rights of the
holder with respect to the obligor under the loan.
``(2) Disposition of property.--The Secretary may complete,
recondition, reconstruct, renovate, repair, maintain,
operate, charter, rent, sell, or otherwise dispose of any
property or other interests obtained pursuant to this
section. The Secretary shall not be subject to any Federal or
State regulatory requirements when carrying out this
paragraph.
``(i) Action Against Obligor.--The Secretary may bring a
civil action in an appropriate Federal court in the name of
the United States in the event of a default on a direct loan
made under section 502, or in the name of the United States
or of the holder of the obligation in the event of a default
on a loan guaranteed under section 502. The holder of a
guarantee shall make available to the Secretary all records
and evidence necessary to prosecute the civil action. The
Secretary may accept property in full or partial satisfaction
of any sums owed as a result of a default. If the Secretary
receives, through the sale or other disposition of such
property, an amount greater than the aggregate of--
``(1) the amount paid to the holder of a guarantee under
subsection (g) of this section; and
``(2) any other cost to the United States of remedying the
default,
the Secretary shall pay such excess to the obligor.
``(j) Breach of Conditions.--The Attorney General shall
commence a civil action in an appropriate Federal court to
enjoin any activity which the Secretary finds is in violation
of this title, regulations issued hereunder, or any
conditions which were duly agreed to, and to secure any other
appropriate relief.
``(k) Attachment.--No attachment or execution may be issued
against the Secretary, or any property in the control of the
Secretary, prior to the entry of final judgment to such
effect in any State, Federal, or other court.
``(l) Investigation Charge.--The Secretary may charge and
collect from each applicant a reasonable charge for appraisal
of the value of the equipment or facilities for which the
direct loan or loan guarantee is sought, and for making
necessary determinations and findings. Such charge shall not
aggregate more than one-half of 1 percent of the principal
amount of the obligation.'';
(2) by striking sections 505 through 515 (other than
511(c)), 517, and 518;
(3) in section 511(c) by striking ``this section'' and
inserting ``section 502'';
(4) by moving subsection (c) of section 511 (as amended by
paragraph (3) of this section) from section 511 to section
503 (as inserted by paragraph (1) of this section), inserting
it after subsection (a), and redesignating it as subsection
(b); and
(5) by redesignating section 516 as section 504.
(b) Technical and Conforming Provisions.--
(1) Table of contents.--The table of contents of title V of
the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976
is amended by striking the items relating to sections 502
through 518 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 502. Direct loans and loan guarantees.
``Sec. 503. Administration of direct loans and loan guarantees.
``Sec. 504. Employee protection.''.
(2) Savings provision.--A transaction entered into under
the authority of title V of the Railroad Revitalization and
Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 821 et seq.) before
the date of the enactment of this Act shall be administered
until completion under its terms as if this Act were not
enacted.
(3) Repeal.--Section 211(i) of the Regional Rail
Reorganization Act of 1973 (45 U.S.C. 721(i)) is repealed.
TITLE X--CONDITIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF FUNDING
SEC. 1001. CONDITIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF FUNDING.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure that
all additional spending provided by this Act above the levels
assumed for those programs under section 257 of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 in the
baseline projections contained in the Congressional Budget
Office document entitled ``Revised Baseline Budget
Projections for Fiscal Years 1999-2008,'' dated March 3,
1998, except that for programs with discretionary outlays the
projections shall assume obligation authority at the 1998
enacted level and that the programs shall be adjusted for the
transfer of general fund programs to the trust fund, is fully
offset through mandatory and discretionary offsets set forth
in this Act.
(b) Duty Imposed on Secretary.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall not apportion, allocate, or obligate any
funds authorized or provided by this Act unless it contains a
section stating that the conditions set forth in subsection
(c) have been met.
(c) Enumeration of Specific Conditions.--The conditions
referred to in subsection (b) are that this Act shall contain
provisions that offset any increase in outlays from the
Highway Trust Fund caused by this Act above the levels
assumed for those programs under section 257 of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 in the
baseline projections contained in the Congressional Budget
Office document entitled ``Revised Baseline Budget
Projections for Fiscal Years 1999-2008,'' dated March 3,
1998, except that for programs with discretionary outlays the
projections shall assume obligation authority at the 1998
enacted level and that the programs shall be adjusted for the
transfer of general fund programs to the trust fund, by
reducing mandatory and discretionary spending.
SEC. 1002. SENSE OF CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO VETERANS
PROGRAMS.
It is the sense of the Congress that provisions referred to
in section 1001(c) that are to be contained in this Act to
offset increases described in that section in outlays from
the Highway Trust Fund should not include any provision
making a change in programs or benefits administered by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
TITLE XI--EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF HIGHWAY-RELATED TAXES AND TRUST
FUND
Sec. 1101. Short title; amendment of 1986 Code.
[[Page H1987]]
Sec. 1102. Extension of highway-related taxes and trust fund.
Sec. 1103. Modifications to Highway Trust Fund.
Sec. 1104. Provisions relating to Aquatic Resources Trust Fund.
Sec. 1105. Repeal of excise tax on tires.
Sec. 1106. Repeal of 4.3 cent excise tax on diesel fuel and gasoline
used in trains.
Sec. 1107. Delay in effective date of new requirement for approved
diesel or kerosene terminals.
Sec. 1108. Simplified fuel tax refund procedures.
Sec. 1109. Repeal of National Recreational Trails Trust Fund.
SEC. 1101. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.
(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Surface
Transportation Revenue Act of 1998''.
(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this title an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
SEC. 1102. EXTENSION OF HIGHWAY-RELATED TAXES AND TRUST FUND.
(a) Extension of Taxes.--
(1) In general.--The following provisions are each amended
by striking ``1999'' each place it appears and inserting
``2005'':
(A) Section 4041(a)(1)(C)(iii)(I) (relating to rate of tax
on certain buses).
(B) Section 4041(a)(2)(B) (relating to rate of tax on
special motor fuels), as amended by section 907(a)(1) of the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
(C) Section 4041(m)(1)(A) (relating to certain alcohol
fuels), as amended by section 907(b) of the Taxpayer Relief
Act of 1997.
(D) Section 4051(c) (relating to termination).
(E) Section 4081(d)(1) (relating to termination).
(F) Section 4481(e) (relating to period tax in effect).
(G) Section 4482(c)(4) (relating to taxable period).
(H) Section 4482(d) (relating to special rule for taxable
period in which termination date occurs).
(2) Tax on tires extended only through September 30,
2000.--Section 4071(d) (relating to termination) is amended
by striking ``1999'' and inserting ``2000''.
(3) Other provisions.--
(A) Floor stocks refunds.--Section 6412(a)(1) (relating to
floor stocks refunds) is amended--
(i) by striking ``1999'' each place it appears and
inserting ``2005'', and
(ii) by striking ``2000'' each place it appears and
inserting ``2006''.
(B) Installment payments of highway use tax.--Section
6156(e)(2) (relating to installment payments of highway use
tax on use of highway motor vehicles) is amended by striking
``1999'' and inserting ``2005''.
(b) Extension of Certain Exemptions.--The following
provisions are each amended by striking ``1999'' and
inserting ``2005'':
(1) Section 4221(a) (relating to certain tax-free sales).
(2) Section 4483(g) (relating to termination of exemptions
for highway use tax).
(c) Extension of Deposits Into, and Certain Transfers From,
Trust Fund.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b), and paragraphs (2) and (3)
of subsection (c), of section 9503 (relating to the Highway
Trust Fund) are each amended--
(A) by striking ``1999'' each place it appears (other than
in subsection (b)(4)) and inserting ``2005'', and
(B) by striking ``2000'' each place it appears and
inserting ``2006''.
(2) Motorboat and small-engine fuel tax transfers.--
(A) In general.--Paragraphs (4)(A)(i) and (5)(A) of section
9503(c) are each amended by striking ``1998'' and inserting
``2003''.
(B) Conforming amendments to land and water conservation
fund.--Section 201(b) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-11(b)) is amended--
(i) by striking ``1997'' and inserting ``2003'', and
(ii) by striking ``1998'' each place it appears and
inserting ``2004''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--The heading for paragraph (3) of
section 9503(c) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Floor stocks refunds.--''.
(d) Extension and Expansion of Expenditures From Trust
Fund.--
(1) Highway account.--
(A) Extension of expenditure authority.--Paragraph (1) of
section 9503(c) is amended by striking ``1998'' and inserting
``2003''.
(B) Expansion of purposes.--Paragraph (1) of section
9503(c) is amended--
(i) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C), and
(ii) by striking ``1991.'' in subparagraph (D) and all that
follows through the end of paragraph (1) and inserting
``1991, or
``(E) authorized to be paid out of the Highway Trust Fund
under the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and
Equity Act of 1998.
In determining the authorizations under the Acts referred to
in the preceding subparagraphs, such Acts shall be applied as
in effect on the date of the enactment of the Building
Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of 1998.''.
(2) Mass transit account.--
(A) Extension of expenditure authority.--Paragraph (3) of
section 9503(e) is amended by striking ``1998'' and inserting
``2003''.
(B) Expansion of purposes.--Paragraph (3) of section
9503(e) is amended--
(i) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A),
(ii) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B), and
(iii) by striking all that follows subparagraph (B) and
inserting:
``(C) the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and
Equity Act of 1998,
as such sections and Acts are in effect on the date of the
enactment of the Building Efficient Surface Transportation
and Equity Act of 1998.''.
(e) Technical Correction Relating to Transfers to Mass
Transit Account.--
(1) In general.--Section 9503(e)(2) is amended by striking
the last sentence and inserting the following: ``For purposes
of the preceding sentence, the term `mass transit portion'
means, for any fuel with respect to which tax was imposed
under section 4041 or 4081 and otherwise deposited into the
Highway Trust Fund, the amount determined at the rate of--
``(A) except as otherwise provided in this sentence, 2.86
cents per gallon,
``(B) 1.43 cents per gallon in the case of any partially
exempt methanol or ethanol fuel (as defined in section
4041(m)) none of the alcohol in which consists of ethanol,
``(C) 1.86 cents per gallon in the case of liquefied
natural gas,
``(D) 2.13 cents per gallon in the case of liquefied
petroleum gas, and
``(E) 9.71 cents per MCF (determined at standard
temperature and pressure) in the case of compressed natural
gas.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect as if included in the amendment made by
section 901(b) of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
SEC. 1103. MODIFICATIONS TO HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.
(a) Determination of Trust Fund Balances After September
30, 1998.--
(1) In general.--Section 9503 (relating to Highway Trust
Fund) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(f) Determination of Trust Fund Balances After September
30, 1998.--For purposes of determining the balances of the
Highway Trust Fund and the Mass Transit Account after
September 30, 1998--
``(1) the opening balance of the Highway Trust Fund (other
than the Mass Transit Account) on October 1, 1998, shall be
$8,000,000,000,
``(2) the opening balance of the Mass Transit Account on
such date shall be $5,500,000,000, and
``(3) no interest on any obligation held by such Fund shall
be credited to such Fund if such interest accrues after
September 30, 1998.
The Secretary shall cancel obligations held by the Highway
Trust Fund to reflect the reduction in the balances under
this subsection.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect on October 1, 1998.
(b) Repeal of Limitation on Expenditures Added by Taxpayer
Relief Act of 1997.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 9503 (relating
to expenditures from Highway Trust Fund) is amended by
striking paragraph (7).
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect as if included in the amendments made by
section 901 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
(c) Limitation on Expenditure Authority.--Subsection (b) of
section 9503 (relating to transfers to Highway Trust Fund) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Limitation on transfers to highway trust fund.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
no amount may be appropriated to the Highway Trust Fund on
and after the date of any expenditure from the Highway Trust
Fund which is not permitted by this section. The
determination of whether an expenditure is so permitted shall
be made without regard to--
``(i) any provision of law which is not contained or
referenced in this title or in a revenue Act, and
``(ii) whether such provision of law is a subsequently
enacted provision or directly or indirectly seeks to waive
the application of this paragraph.
``(B) Exception for prior obligations.--Subparagraph (A)
shall not apply to any expenditure to liquidate any contract
entered into (or for any amount otherwise obligated) before
October 1, 2003, in accordance with the provisions of this
section.''.
(d) Modification of Mass Transit Account Rules on
Adjustments of Apportionments.--Paragraph (4) of section
9503(e) is amended to read as follows:
``(4) Limitation.--Rules similar to the rules of subsection
(d) shall apply to the Mass Transit Account.''.
SEC. 1104. PROVISIONS RELATING TO AQUATIC RESOURCES TRUST
FUND.
(a) Increased Transfers.--
(1)(A) Effective with respect to taxes imposed after
September 30, 1999, and before October 1, 2000, subparagraph
(D) of section 9503(b)(4) is amended by striking ``11.5
cents'' and inserting ``14.9 cents''.
(B) Effective with respect to taxes imposed after September
30, 2000, paragraph (4) of section 9503(b) is amended by
striking subparagraph (D) and by redesignating subparagraphs
(E), (F), and (G) as subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F),
respectively.
[[Page H1988]]
(2) Subparagraph (A) of section 9503(c)(4), as amended by
section 1102(c)(2)(A), is amended to read as follows:
``(A) Transfers to boat safety account.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall pay from time to
time from the Highway Trust Fund into the Boat Safety Account
in the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund amounts (as determined by
the Secretary) equivalent to one-half of the motorboat fuel
taxes received after September 30, 1998, and before October
1, 2003.
``(ii) Limit on amount in fund.--No amount shall be
transferred under this subparagraph during any fiscal year if
the Secretary determines that such transfer would result in
increasing the unobligated balance in the Boat Safety Account
to a sum in excess of one-half of the total amount received
as motorboat fuel taxes during the preceding fiscal year.''.
(b) Extension and Expansion of Expenditure Authority From
Boat Safety Account.--Section 9504(c) (relating to
expenditures from Boat Safety Account) is amended--
(1) by striking ``1998'' and inserting ``2003'', and
(2) by striking ``October 1, 1988'' and inserting ``the
date of the enactment of the Building Efficient Surface
Transportation and Equity Act of 1998''.
(c) Limitation on Expenditure Authority.--Section 9504
(relating to Aquatic Resources Trust Fund) is amended by
redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e) and by
inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Limitation on Transfers to Aquatic Resources Trust
Fund.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no
amount may be appropriated or paid to any Account in the
Aquatic Resources Trust Fund on and after the date of any
expenditure from any such Account which is not permitted by
this section. The determination of whether an expenditure is
so permitted shall be made without regard to--
``(A) any provision of law which is not contained or
referenced in this title or in a revenue Act, and
``(B) whether such provision of law is a subsequently
enacted provision or directly or indirectly seeks to waive
the application of this subsection.
``(2) Exception for prior obligations.--Paragraph (1) shall
not apply to any expenditure to liquidate any contract
entered into (or for any amount otherwise obligated) before
October 1, 2003, in accordance with the provisions of this
section.''.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the amendments made by this section shall take
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Increased transfers.--The amendment made by subsection
(a)(2) shall take effect on October 1, 1998.
SEC. 1105. REPEAL OF EXCISE TAX ON TIRES.
(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 32 (relating to
automotive and related items) is amended by striking part II.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 4051 is amended by striking subsection (d).
(2) Section 4218 is amended--
(A) by striking ``(other than a tire taxable under section
4071)'' in subsection (a),
(B) by striking subsection (b), and
(C) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b).
(3)(A) The third sentence of section 4221(a) is amended to
read as follows: ``Paragraphs (4) and (5) shall not apply to
the tax imposed by section 4051 on and after October 1,
2005.''
(B) Subsection (e) of section 4221 is amended--
(i) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3),
(ii) by striking so much of such subsection as precedes the
text of paragraph (1) and inserting:
``(e) Reciprocity Required in Case of Civil Aircraft.--'',
and
(iii) by moving such text 2 ems to the left.
(4) Paragraph (1) of section 4223(b) is amended by striking
``section 4218(c)'' and inserting ``section 4218(b)''.
(5)(A) Paragraph (1) of section 6412(a) is amended--
(i) by striking ``Tires and taxable'' in the heading and
inserting ``Taxable'', and
(ii) by striking ``4071 or''.
(B) Subsection (c) of section 6412 is amended by striking
``sections 4071 and'' and inserting ``section''.
(6)(A) Paragraph (1) of section 6416(b) is amended--
(i) by striking ``or (C)'' in subparagraph (A), and
(ii) by striking subparagraph (C).
(B) Paragraph (2) of section 6416(b) is amended by adding
``or'' at the end of subparagraph (D), by striking
subparagraph (E), and by redesignating subparagraph (F) as
subparagraph (E).
(C) Subsection (b) of section 6416 is amended by striking
paragraph (4) and redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as
paragraphs (4) and (5), respectively.
(D) Subsection (d) of section 4216 is amended by striking
``section 6416(b)(5)'' and inserting ``section 6416(b)(4)''.
(7) Paragraph (1) of section 9503(b) is amended by striking
subparagraphs (C) and (D) and by redesignating subparagraphs
(E) and (F) as subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively.
(8) Paragraph (5) of section 9503(b) is amended by striking
``and (E)'' and inserting ``and (C)''.
(9) The table of parts for subchapter A of chapter 32 is
amended by striking the item relating to part II.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2000; except that the
amendment made by subsection (b)(6) shall not apply to
amounts received in the Treasury with respect to taxes
imposed before such date.
SEC. 1106. REPEAL OF 4.3 CENT EXCISE TAX ON DIESEL FUEL AND
GASOLINE USED IN TRAINS.
(a) Diesel Fuel.--
(1) In general.--Clause (ii) of section 4041(a)(1)(C)
(relating to rate of tax) is amended to read as follows:
``(ii) Rate of tax on trains.--In the case of any sale for
use, or use, of diesel fuel in a train, the rate of tax
imposed by this paragraph shall be--
``(I) 5.55 cents per gallon after September 30, 1995, and
before October 1, 1999,
``(II) 4.3 cents per gallon after September 30, 1999, and
before October 1, 2000, and
``(III) zero after September 30, 2000.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (B) of section
6427(l)(3) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) so much of the rate specified in section
4081(a)(2)(A) as does not exceed--
``(i) 5.55 cents per gallon after September 30, 1995, and
before October 1, 1999,
``(ii) 4.3 cents per gallon after September 30, 1999, and
before October 1, 2000, and
``(iii) zero after September 30, 2000.''.
(b) Gasoline.--Subparagraph (B) of section 6421(f)(3) is
amended to read as follows:
``(B) so much of the rate specified in section
4081(a)(2)(A) as does not exceed--
``(i) 5.55 cents per gallon after September 30, 1995, and
before October 1, 1999,
``(ii) 4.3 cents per gallon after September 30, 1999, and
before October 1, 2000, and
``(iii) zero after September 30, 2000.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1107. DELAY IN EFFECTIVE DATE OF NEW REQUIREMENT FOR
APPROVED DIESEL OR KEROSENE TERMINALS.
Subsection (f) of section 1032 of the Taxpayer Relief Act
of 1997 is amended to read as follows:
``(f) Effective Dates.--
``(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the amendments
made by this section shall take effect on July 1, 1998.
``(2) The amendment made by subsection (d) shall take
effect on July 1, 2000.''.
SEC. 1108. SIMPLIFIED FUEL TAX REFUND PROCEDURES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 6427(i)(2) is
amended to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--If, at the close of any quarter of the
taxable year of any person, at least $750 is payable in the
aggregate under subsections (a), (b), (d), (h), (l), and (q)
of this section and section 6421 to such person with respect
to fuel used--
``(i) during such quarter, or
``(ii) any prior quarter during such taxable year for which
no other claim has been filed,
a claim may be filed under this section with respect to such
fuel.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subsection (i) of section 6427 is amended by striking
paragraph (4) and by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph
(4).
(2) Paragraph (2) of section 6427(k) is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a
payment of a claim filed under paragraph (2), (3), or (4) of
subsection (i).''.
(3) Paragraph (2) of section 6421(d) is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) Exception.--
``For payments per quarter based on aggregate amounts payable under
this section and section 6427, see section 6427(i)(2).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 1998.
SEC. 1109. REPEAL OF NATIONAL RECREATIONAL TRAILS TRUST FUND.
(a) In General.--Section 9511 (relating to National
Recreational Trails Trust Fund) is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 9503(c) is amended by striking paragraph (6).
(2) The table of sections for subchapter A of chapter 98 is
amended by striking the item relating to section 9511.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute is in order except those printed in Part II of the
report. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
It is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in Part II
of the House report 105-476.
[[Page H1989]]
Amendment No. 1 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:
Part II, amendment numbered 1 offered by Mr. Shuster:
In section 109(b)--
(1) redesignate paragraphs (1) through (4) as paragraphs
(2) through (5), respectively; and
(2) insert before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) the
following:
(1) by striking ``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 inserting
the following: ``that is or was designated as a nonattainment
area for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter under
section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)) and
classified pursuant to section 181(a), 186(a), 188(a), or
188(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7511(a), 7512(a),
7513(a), or 7513(b)) or is or was designated as a
nonattainment area under such section 107(d) after December
31, 1997,'';
In section 109 of the bill--
(1) redesignate subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(2) insert after subsection (b) the following:
(c) Public-Private Partnerships.--Section 149 is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(e) Partnerships With Nongovernmental Entities.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title and in accordance with this subsection, a
metropolitan planning organization, State transportation
department, or other project sponsor may enter into an
agreement with any public, private, or nonprofit entity to
cooperatively implement any project carried out under this
section.
``(2) Forms of participation by entities.--Participation by
an entity under paragraph (1) may consist of--
``(A) ownership or operation of any land, facility,
vehicle, or other physical asset associated with the project;
``(B) cost sharing of any eligible project expense; and
``(C) any other form of participation approved by the
Secretary.
``(3) Allocation of entities.--A State may allocate funds
apportioned under section 104(b)(2) to an entity described in
paragraph (1).
``(4) Alternative fuel projects.--In the case of a project
that will provide for the use of alternative fuels by
privately owned vehicles or vehicle fleets, activities
eligible for funding under this subsection--
``(A) may include the costs of vehicle refueling
infrastructure, including infrastructure that would support
the development, production, and use of innovative water-
phased hydrocarbon fuel emulsion technologies, and other
capital investments associated with the project;
``(B) shall include only the incremental cost of an
alternative fueled vehicle compared to a conventionally
fueled vehicle that would otherwise be borne by a private
party; and
``(C) shall apply other governmental financial purchase
contributions in the calculation of net incremental cost.
``(5) Prohibition on federal participation with respect to
required activities.--A Federal participation payment under
this subsection may not be made to an entity to fund an
obligation imposed under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.) or any other Federal law.
``(6) Water-phased hydrocarbon fuel emulsion.--In this
subsection, the term `water-phased hydrocarbon fuel emulsion'
consists of a hydrocarbon base and water in an amount not
less than 20 percent by volume of the total water-phased fuel
emulsion.''.
In the matter proposed to be inserted as section
206(e)(1)(K) of title 23, United States Code, by section
114(a) of the bill, insert ``of 1969'' after ``National
Environmental Policy Act''.
In the last sentence of section 111(d) of the bill, strike
``fiscal year 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003, as the
case may be'' and insert ``the fiscal year beginning after
September 30, 1997''.
In section 117(b) of the bill--
(1) strike ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(2) redesignate paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(3) insert after paragraph (1) the following:
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) by inserting ``Indian Reservation Roads.--'' after
``(d)'';
(B) by inserting ``(1) For fiscal years ending before
october 1, 1999.--'' before ``On October'';
(C) by inserting after ``each fiscal year'' the following:
``ending before October 1, 1999'';
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Fiscal year 2000 and thereafter.--
``(A) In general.--All funds authorized to be appropriated
for Indian reservation roads shall be allocated among Indian
tribes for fiscal year 2000 and each subsequent fiscal year
in accordance with a formula established by the Secretary of
the Interior under a negotiated rulemaking procedure under
subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 5.
``(B) Regulations.--Notwithstanding sections 563(a) and
565(a) of title 5, the Secretary of the Interior shall issue
regulations governing the Indian reservation roads program,
and establishing the funding formula for fiscal year 2000 and
each subsequent fiscal year under this paragraph, in
accordance with a negotiated rulemaking procedure under
subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 5. The regulations shall
be issued in final form not later than April 1, 1999, and
shall take effect not later than October 1, 1999.
``(C) Negotiated rulemaking committee.--In establishing a
negotiated rulemaking committee to carry out subparagraph
(B), the Secretary of the Interior shall--
``(i) apply the procedures under subchapter III of chapter
5 of title 5 in a manner that reflects the unique government-
to-government relationship between the Indian tribes and the
United States; and
``(ii) ensure that the membership of the committee includes
only representatives of the Federal Government and of
geographically diverse small, medium, and large Indian
tribes.
``(D) Basis for funding formula.--The funding formula
established for fiscal year 2000 and each subsequent fiscal
year under this paragraph shall be based on factors that
reflect--
``(i) the relative needs of the Indian tribes, and
reservation or tribal communities, for transportation
assistance; and
``(ii) the relative administrative capacities of, and
challenges faced by, various Indian tribes, including the
cost of road construction in each Bureau of Indian Affairs
area, geographic isolation and difficulty in maintaining all-
weather access to employment, commerce, health, safety, and
educational resources.''; and
(E) by indenting paragraph (1), as designated by
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, and aligning paragraph
(1) with paragraph (2), as added by subparagraph (D) of this
paragraph; and
In section 117(d) of the bill--
(1) strike ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(2) strike the period at the end of paragraph (4) and
insert ``; and''; and
(3) add at the end the following:
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Set-Aside for Administrative Expenses of Indian
Tribes.--
``(1) In general.--Up to 1 percent of the funds made
available for Indian reservation roads for each fiscal year
shall be set aside by the Secretary of the Interior for
transportation-related administrative expenses of Indian
tribal governments.
``(2) Distribution.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
make available to each Indian tribal government with an
approved application under paragraph (3) an equal percentage
of any sum set aside pursuant to paragraph (1).
``(3) Applications.--To receive funds under this paragraph,
an Indian tribal government must submit to the Secretary of
the Interior for approval an application in accordance with
the requirements of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act. The Secretary of the Interior shall
approve any such application that demonstrates that the
applicant has the capability to carry out transportation
planning activities or is in the process of establishing such
a capability.
``(l) Approval of Indian Reservation Road Projects by the
Secretary.--
``(1) Establishment of pilot program.--The Secretary shall
establish a pilot program (hereinafter in this subsection
referred to as the `program') for the purposes described in
paragraph (2) and shall carry out such program in each of
fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
``(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the program shall be to
permit an Indian tribal government to apply directly to the
Secretary for authorization to conduct projects on Indian
reservation roads using amounts allocated to the Indian
tribal government under the Indian reservation roads program.
``(3) Treatment as states.--Except as otherwise provided by
the Secretary, an Indian tribal government submitting an
application to the Secretary under the program shall be
subject to the same requirements as a State applying for
approval of a Federal-aid highway project.
``(4) Selection of participants.--
``(A) Applications.--An Indian tribal government seeking to
participate in the program shall submit to the Secretary an
application which is in such form and contains such
information as the Secretary may require.
``(B) Maximum number of participants.--The Secretary shall
select not more than 10 Indian tribal governments to
participate in the program.
``(5) Technical assistance.--The Secretary, in cooperation
with the Secretary of the Interior, shall provide technical
assistance to Indian tribal governments participating in the
program.
``(6) Transitional assistance.--Upon request of the
Secretary, the Secretary of the Interior shall provide to the
Secretary such assistance as may be necessary for
implementation of the program.
``(7) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2001, the
Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results
of the program. In developing such report, the Secretary
shall solicit the comments of Indian tribal governments
participating in the program.''.
In section 120 of the bill--
(1) redesignate subsections (a), (b), and (c), as
subsections (b), (c), and (d), respectively; and
[[Page H1990]]
(2) insert before subsection (b) (as so redesignated) the
following:
(a) Increased Federal Share for Certain Safety Projects.--
The first sentence of section 120(c) is amended by inserting
``and transit vehicles'' after ``emergency vehicles''.
In the matter proposed to be inserted after the second
sentence of paragraph (1) of section 135(f) of title 23,
United States Code, by section 125(d)(1) of the bill, strike
``elected'' each place it appears.
In section 127(b) of the bill, strike ``Section 104'' and
all that follows through the first colon and insert the
following:
(1) In general.--Section 104 is amended by redesignating
subsection (j) as subsection (k), and by inserting after
subsection (i) the following:
At the end of section 127(b) of the bill, insert the
following:
(2) Division or segmentation of projects.--Section 145 is
amended--
(A) by inserting ``(a) Protection of State Sovereignty.--''
before ``The authorization''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Division or Segmentation of Projects.--
``(1) In general.--A State carrying out a project with
funds made available by section 104(j) of this title or
section 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1107, or 1108 of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 or
section 149(b) or 149(c) of the Surface Transportation and
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 may divide or
segment the project if such division or segmentation meets
the standards established by the Secretary for division or
segmentation (as the case may be) of projects under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
``(2) Authority of states to construct without federal
assistance.--Any portion of any project divided or segmented
under this section may be constructed without Federal
assistance.''.
In the table contained in section 127(c) of the bill--
(1) in item 3 strike ``0.750'' and insert ``1.000'';
(2) in item 5 strike ``2 miles south of Biwabik'' and
insert ``CR-535'';
(3) in item 6 strike ``7.000'' and insert ``6.000'';
(4) in item 8 after ``$2,000,000'' insert the following:
``for the S. 277th St./UP project in Auburn/Kent, $2,000,000
for the S. 180th St. project in Tukwila, $1,000,000 for the
8th St. E/B SNF project in Pierce Co., and $1,500,000 for the
Shaw Rd. extension and Puyallup'';
(5) in item 11 strike ``Construct'' and all that follows
through ``Los''and insert ``Upgrade access to Sylmar/San
Fernando Metrolink Station and Westfield Village, Los
Angeles'';
(6) in item 19 strike ``15.000'' and insert ``8.150'';
(7) in item 32--
(A) strike ``to establish'' and insert a comma;
(B) strike ``and center''; and
(C) insert ``Bayonne,'' before ``Elizabeth'';
(8) in item 43--
(A) strike ``Missouri'' and insert ``West Virginia'';
(B) strike ``Construct'' and all that follows through ``St.
Louis'' and insert ``Construct I-73/74 Corridor, including an
interchange with US-460, Mercer County''; and
(C) strike ``1.200'' and insert ``15.000'';
(9) in item 74 strike ``1.520'' and insert ``1.920'';
(10) in item 80 strike ``Bibb'' and insert ``Perry'';
(11) in item 90 strike ``5.290'' and insert ``3.385'';
(12) in item 95--
(A) strike ``work'' and insert ``construction''; and
(B) strike ``I-65'' and insert ``city of Huntsville'';
(13) in item 104 strike ``5.000'' and insert ``19.200'';
(14) in item 108 strike ``Design'' and all that follows
through ``bypass,'' and insert ``Preliminary engineering and
right-of-way acquisition for `Intertown South' route of US 31
bypass, Emmet County;
(15) in item 129--
(A) strike ``209'' and insert ``290''; and
(B) strike ``16.000'' and insert ``18.000;
(16) in item 133 strike ``Kaumualili'' and insert
``Kaumualii'';
(17) in item 135--
(A) strike ``Illinois'' and insert ``West Virginia'';
(B) strike ``Construct'' and all that follows through
``Chicago'' and insert ``Construct Shawnee Parkway between
junction with I-73/74 corridor and I-77''; and
(C) strike ``1.000'' and insert ``5.000'';
(18) in item 142 strike ``to Bowstring River'' and insert
``and Highway 1'';
(19) in item 143 strike ``0.500'' and insert ``4.500'';
(20) in item 148 strike ``I-69'' and insert ``I-96'';
(21) in item 162 strike ``Bro'' and insert ``Brownsville'';
(22) in item 194 strike ``Construct'' and all that follows
through ``replacement)'' and insert ``Replacement and
renovation of Carlton Bridge, Bath/Woolwich'';
(23) in item 196 strike ``Tutilla Island'' and insert
``Tutuila/Manua Islands'';
(24) in item 208--
(A) strike ``on'' and insert ``an''; and
(B) strike ``1.600'' and insert ``1.200'';
(25) in item 216 strike ``8.000'' and insert ``14.000'';
(26) in item 227 strike ``14.000'' and insert ``19.000'';
(27) in item 237 insert ``on Telegraph Road'' after
``boulevard'';
(28) strike item 244 and insert the following:
244. Indiana Upgrade 93rd Avenue in 5.900
Merrillville..........
(29) in item 248 strike ``3.000'' and insert ``4.000'';
(30) in item 254 strike ``Angelese'' and insert
``Angeles'';
(31) in item 258 strike ``0.170'' and insert ``0.400'';
(32) in item 262 insert ``, San Ysidro'' after ``Yard'';
(33) strike item 286 and insert the following:
286. Indiana Construct Marina Access 1.000
Road in East Chicago..
(34) in item 300 strike ``7.000'' and insert ``8.000'';
(35) in item 303 strike ``13.000'' and insert ``12.000'';
(36) in item 342--
(A) strike ``Construct'' and insert ``Reconstruct'';
(B) strike ``to'' and insert ``at''; and
(C) strike ``8.000'' and insert ``15.000'';
(37) in item 381 strike ``Construct'' and all that follows
through ``Westfield'' and insert ``Design, engineer, and
right-of-way acquisition of the Great River Bridge,
Westfield'';
(38) in item 391 strike ``Kapkowsk'' and insert
``Kapowski'';
(39) in item 394 strike ``10.310'' and insert ``2.000'';
(40) in item 415 after ``College'' insert ``, including a
new interchange on S.R. 0029'';
(41) in item 444--
(A) after ``Project'' insert ``in Passaic County''; and
(B) after ``for the Route'' the last place it appears
insert ``46/Union Blvd. Interchange reconstruction project'';
(42) in item 447 strike ``Destrehan Ave. and Lapalco
Blvd.'' and insert ``Barataria Blvd. and US Hwy. 90'';
(43) in item 474 strike ``9.500'' and insert ``7.500'';
(44) in item 478 insert ``in Murfreesboro'' after
``River'';
(45) in item 482 strike ``Kawahihee'' and insert
``Kawaihae'';
(46) in item 484 strike ``Upgrade'' and insert
``Operational improvements on'';
(47) in item 497 strike ``40'' and insert ``45'';
(48) in item 535 strike ``2.000'' and insert ``4.500'';
(49) in item 544 strike ``3.500'' and insert ``1.900'';
(50) in item 558 strike ``4.000'' and insert ``5.000'';
(51) in item 564 strike ``0.250'' and insert ``0.500'';
(52) in item 596 strike ``1.000'' and insert ``0.500'';
(53) in item 610 strike ``Upgrade'' and all that follows
through ``Hill'' and insert ``Alternative transportation
systems'';
(54) in item 613 strike ``Upgrade'' and insert
``Operational improvements on'';
(55) in item 615 strike ``Construct'' and all that follows
through ``Los Angeles'' and insert ``Upgrade CA Rt. 2
Southern Freeway terminus and transportation efficiency
improvements to Glendale Blvd. in Los Angeles'';
(56) in item 619--
(A) strike ``George'' and insert ``Georgia''; and
(B) strike ``4.000'' and insert ``5.000'';
(57) in item 625--
(A) strike ``Ohio'' and insert ``West Virginia'';
(B) ``Construct'' and all that follows through ``Lorain''
and insert ``Construct I-73/74 Corridor including connectors
with WV Rt. 44 and Co. Rt. 13 (Gilbert Creek), Mingo
County''; and
(C) strike ``2.400'' and insert ``10.000'';
(58) in item 636 strike ``2.000'' and insert ``2.197'';
(59) strike item 662 and insert the following:
[[Page H1991]]
662. Louisiana Construct the Zachary 1.000
Taylor Parkway project
(60) in item 717 strike ``0.750'' and insert ``1.000'';
(61) in item 735 strike ``the airport'' and insert
``Commerce Blvd.'';
(62) strike item 738 and insert the following:
738. North Carolina Upgrade US-158 in 3.000
Warren and Halifax
Counties..............
(63) in item 759 strike ``Williamsport'' and insert
``Lycoming County'';
(64) in item 831 strike ``23.500'' and insert ``1.500'';
(65) in item 846 strike ``14.750'' and insert ``12.000'';
(66) in item 847 insert ``Construct'' before ``Ontario'';
(67) in item 857 strike ``10.000'' and insert ``15.000'';
(68) in item 884 strike ``I-15'' and insert ``I-10'';
(69) in item 859 strike ``4.300'' and insert ``2.000'';
(70) in item 872 strike ``5.000'' and insert ``5.250'';
(71) in item 887 strike ``Hourma'' and insert ``Houma'';
(72) in item 913 strike ``Engineering'' and all that
follows through ``construction of'' and insert ``Engineer,
acquire right-of-way, and construct'';
(73) in item 926 strike ``Construct'' and insert ``Acquire
right-of-way and construct'';
(74) in item 939 insert after ``FM521'' insert ``and
dedicate $630,000 to the acquisition of right-of-way in
Brazoria County'';
(75) in item 961 strike ``County'';
(76) in item 971 strike ``12.000'' and insert ``7.000''.
(77) in item 993 strike ``1.500'' and insert ``23.500'';
(78) in item 1033 strike ``12.000'' and insert ``11.000'';
(79) in item 1044 after ``Kentucky'' the first place it
appears, insert ``and Indiana'';
(80) strike item 1049 and insert the following:
1049. New York Construct CR-3 at 1.400
Southern State Parkway
overpass between Long
Island Expressway and
Colonial Springs......
(81) in item 1079 strike ``10.200'' and insert ``12.500'';
(82) in item 1103 strike ``Evergreen County'' and insert
``the city of Evergreen in Jefferson County'';
(83) in item 1125 strike ``I-80'' and insert ``I-180'';
(84) in item 1150--
(A) strike ``to Adirondack''; and
(B) strike ``14.000'' and insert ``14.200'';
(85) in item 1197 strike ``Conduct'' and all that follows
through ``of'' and insert ``Construct'';
(86) in item 1206 insert after ``Michigan'' the second
place it appears the following: ``by extending 36th Street,
improving 48th Street, and constructing the I-96/Whitneyville
Interchange'';
(87) in item 1213 strike ``4.800'' and insert ``5.410'';
(88) strike item 1238 and insert the following:
1238. Alabama Construct Eastern Black 23.000
Warrior River Bridge
and acquire right-of-
way and construct an
extension of the Black
Warrior Parkway from
US-82 to US-43 in
Tuscaloosa County.....
(89) in item 1291 strike ``15.000'' and insert ``16.000'';
(90) in item 1353 strike ``in Hancock'' and insert ``from
SR-235 in Hancock County to the Ontario Bypass in Richland
County'';
(91) strike item 1362 and insert the following:
1362. Pennsylvania Conduct preliminary 2.000
engineering on the
relocation of exits 4
and 5 on I-83 in York
County................
(92) in item 1368 strike ``6.000'' and insert ``5.000'';
(93) in item 1373 strike ``Reconstruct'' and all that
follows through ``Yakima'' and insert the following:
``Reconstruct I-82/SR-24 intersection and add lanes on SR-24
to Keys Road'';
(94) in item 1379 strike ``US-127'' and insert ``US-231'';
(95) in item 1387 strike ``San Bernardino'' and insert
``Victorville/Apple Valley'';
(96) in item 1412 insert a slash after ``Office'';
(97) in item 1423 strike ``4.825'' and insert ``4.740'';
(98) in item 1443 strike ``Construct'' and all that follows
through ``Road'' and insert the following: ``Conduct
preliminary engineering, acquire right-of-way, and construct
I-75/North Down River Road interchange'';
(99) in item 1444 strike ``CR-96'' and insert ``CR-82'';
and
(100) after item 1467 insert the following:
1468. Kansas Construct Phase II 10.000
improvements to US-59
from US-56 to Ottawa..
1469. Pennsylvania Rehabilitate Kenmawr 0.450
Bridge, Swissvale.....
1470. Pennsylvania Construct Steel 0.482
Heritage Trail between
Glenwood Bridge to
Clairton via
McKeesport............
1471. Illinois Construct Technology 2.735
Ave. between US Rt. 45
East to Willenborg
St., Effingham........
1472. Pennsylvania Conduct preliminary 1.000
engineering and design
for US-219 bypass of
Bradford..............
1473. Texas Construct relief route 0.250
around Alice..........
1474. Ohio Upgrade State Rt. 18 2.400
between I-71 and I-77.
1475. Illinois Upgrade St. Marie 0.036
Township Rd., Jasper
County................
[[Page H1992]]
1476. Illinois Upgrade US 40 in 0.094
Martinsville..........
1477. Michigan Repair 48th Ave., 0.270
Menominee.............
1478. Illinois Undertake improvements 2.000
to Campus
Transportation System,
Chicago...............
1479. Maine Construct I-95/ 2.000
Stillwater Avenue
interchange...........
1480. Maine Improve Route 26....... 1.500
1481. Maine Improve Route 23....... 0.500
1482. Massachusetts Construct Minuteman 0.750
Commuter Bikeway--
Charles River Bikeway
connector, Cambridge
and Watertown.........
1483. Massachusetts Construct Cambridge 3.000
Roadways Improvement
project, Cambridge....
1484. Massachusetts Upgrade Sacramento 0.250
Street underpass,
Somerville............
1485. Massachusetts Reconstruct roadways, 3.000
Somerville............
1486. Michigan Construct improvements 3.000
to 23 Mile Rd. between
Mound Rd. and M-53,
Macomb................
1487. Minnesota Conduct study of 0.500
potential for
diversion of traffic
from the I-35 corridor
to commuter rail,
Chisago County north
of Forest Lake along I-
35 corridor to Rush
City..................
1488. Minnesota Construct Elk River 3.200
bypass from 171st Ave.
at Highway 10 to
intersection of County
Roads 12 and 13 at
Highway 169...........
1489. Minnesota Construct grade 1.000
separated interchange
at south junction of
TH 371/Brainerd bypass
1490. New York Construct Fordham 3.000
University regional
transportation
facility..............
1491. New York Construct bike paths in 0.500
the Riverdale section
of the Bronx..........
1492. New York Construct Phase II of 2.000
the City of Mount
Vernon's New Haven
Railroad Redevelopment
1493. New York Construct Bike Paths 0.500
along the Bronx River
in Bronx Park.........
1494. New York Rehabilitate 1.000
transportation
facilities in CO-OP
City..................
1495. New York Construct sound 1.940
barriers on both sides
of Grand Central
Parkway between 172nd
St. to Chevy Chase Rd.
1496. New York Construct sound 0.400
barriers on east side
of Clearview
Expressway between
15th Rd. and Willets
Point Blvd............
1497. New York Construct sound 0.500
barriers on Grand
Central Parkway
between 244th St. and
Douglaston Parkway....
1498. New York Rehabilitate roads, 0.160
Village of Great Neck.
1499. Tennessee Construct pedestrian 3.000
and bicycle pathway to
connect with the
Mississippi River
Trail, and restore
adjacent historic
cobblestones on
riverfront, Memphis...
1500. Texas Expand Winters Freeway 11.200
(US83/84) in Abilene
between Southwest
Drive and US 277......
[[Page H1993]]
1501. New York Reconstruct Springfield 4.000
Blvd. between the Long
Island Rail main line
south to Rockaway
Blvd., Queens County..
1502. Pennsylvania Construct Frazier 3.000
Township interchange
on SR-28 in Allegheny.
1503. Minnesota Reconstruct St. Louis 0.600
CSAH 9 (Wallace
Avenue) in Duluth.....
1504. California Reimburse costs 5.350
associated with the
relocation and
protection work
performed relating to
pipelines, cables, and
other facilities
impacted by the
construction of the
Mid-Trench section of
the Alameda Corrido
project...............
1505. Ohio Construct grade 5.000
separation at Dille
Road in Euclid........
1506. Nevada Widen I-15 from the 2.500
California State line
to Las Vegas..........
1507. Nevada Improve at-grade 2.500
railroad crossings in
Reno..................
At the end of section 133 of the bill, add the following:
(h) Survey of State Practices on Specific Service
Signing.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the practices in the States for specific service
food signs described in sections 2G-5.7 and 2G-5.8 of the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways. The study shall, at a minimum, examine--
(A) the practices of States for determining businesses
eligible for inclusion on such signs;
(B) whether States allow businesses to be removed from such
signs and the circumstances for such removal;
(C) the practices of States for erecting and maintaining
such signs, including the time required for erecting such
signs;
(D) whether States contract out the erection and
maintenance of such signs; and
(E) a survey of States' practices on the issues identified
in subparagraphs (A) through (D).
(2) Report.--Before the last day of the 1-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results
of the study, including such recommendations and
modifications to the Manual as the Secretary determines
appropriate as a result of the study. Such modifications may
be made as part of any revision to the Manual.
In section 136(a)(1) of the bill, redesignate subparagraphs
(B), (C), (D), (E), and (F) as subparagraphs (C), (D), (E),
(F), and (G), respectively, and strike subparagraph (A) and
insert the following:
(A) by striking paragraph (5)(B)(iii)(I)(ff) and inserting
the following:
``(ff) South Carolina State line to the Myrtle Beach Conway
region to Georgetown, South Carolina, including a connection
to Andrews following the route 41 corridor and to Manning
following the U.S. Route 521 corridor; and'';
(B) by striking paragraph (5)(B)(iii)(II)(hh) and inserting
the following:
``(hh) South Carolina State line to the Myrtle Beach Conway
region to Georgetown, South Carolina.''.
In the matter proposed to be inserted as paragraph (34) of
section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 by section 136(a)(1)(F) of the bill--
(1) insert after ``Alameda Corridor East'' the following:
``and Southwest Passage, California. The Alameda Corridor
East is''; and
(2) insert after ``Bernardino.'' the following: ``The
Southwest Passage shall follow I-10 from San Bernardino to
the Arizona State line and I-8 from San Diego to the Arizona
State line.''.
Strike the closing quotation marks and the final period at
the end of the matter proposed to be inserted as paragraph
(39) of section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 by section 136(a)(1)(F)
of the bill and insert the following:
``(40) United States Route 277/United States Route 83
Corridor between I-44 in Wichita Falls, Texas, and I-20 in
Abilene, Texas.''.
In section 140 of the bill--
(1) insert ``(a) Contracting Procedures.--'' before
``Section 112(b)(2)''; and
(2) insert at the end the following:
(b) Selection Process.--Section 112 is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(g) Selection Process.--A State may procure, under a
single contract, the services of a consultant to prepare any
environmental impact assessments or analyses required,
including environmental impact statements, as well as
subsequent engineering and design work on the same project if
the State has conducted a review that assesses the
objectivity of any analysis, environmental assessment, or
environmental impact statement prior to its submission to the
Secretary.''.
After section 143 of the bill, insert the following:
SEC. 144. SUBSTITUTE PROJECT.
(a) Approval of Project.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, upon the request of the Mayor of the
District of Columbia, the Secretary may approve substitute
highway and transit projects under section 103(e)(4) of title
23, United States Code, as in effect on the day before the
date of the enactment of this Act, in lieu of construction of
the Barney Circle Freeway project in the District of
Columbia, as identified in the 1991 Interstate Cost Estimate.
(b) Eligibility for Federal Assistance.--Upon approval of
any substitute project or projects under subsection (a)--
(1) the cost of construction of the Barney Circle Freeway
Modification project shall not be eligible for funds
authorized under section 108(b) of the Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1956; and
(2) substitute projects approved pursuant to this section
shall be funded from interstate construction funds
apportioned or allocated to the District of Columbia that are
not expended and not subject to lapse on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(c) Federal Share.--The Federal share payable on account of
a project or activity approved under this section shall be 85
percent of the cost thereof; except that the exception set
forth in section 120(b)(2) of title 23, United States Code,
shall apply.
(d) Limitation on Eligibility.--Any substitute project
approved pursuant to subsection (a) (for which the Secretary
finds that sufficient Federal funds are available) must be
under contract for construction, or construction must have
commenced, before the last day of the 4-year period beginning
on the date of the enactment of this section. If the
substitute project is not under contract for construction, or
construction has not commenced, by such last day, the
Secretary shall withdraw approval of the substitute project.
SEC. 145. USE OF HOV LANES BY ELECTRIC VEHICLES.
Section 102(a) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, before
September 30, 2003, a State may permit an electric vehicle
with fewer than 2 occupants to operate in high occupancy
vehicle lanes if the vehicle is certified and labeled as an
Inherently Low Emission Vehicle pursuant to section 88.313-93
of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, provided that such
permission may be revoked by the State should the State
determine it necessary.''.
Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
At the end of section 202 of the bill, add the following:
(f) Highway Safety Education and Information.--
(1) In general.--For fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the
Secretary shall allow any State to use funds apportioned to
it under section 402 of title 23, United States Code to
purchase television and radio time for the placement of
highway safety public service messages.
(2) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the
effectiveness of the public service messages and transmit a
report on the results of the study together with the
transmittal under section 508 of this Act.
At the end of section 207, add the following:
(c) Evaluation and Assessment of Alternatives.--
(1) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall evaluate the
implementation of chapter 303 of title 49, United States
Code, and the programs under sections 31106 and 31309 of such
title and identify alternatives to improve the ability of the
States to exchange information about unsafe drivers and to
identify drivers with multiple licenses.
(2) Technology assessment.--The Secretary, in conjunction
with the American
[[Page H1994]]
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, shall conduct an
assessment of available electronic technologies to improve
access to and exchange of motor vehicle driving records. The
assessment may consider alternative unique motor vehicle
driver identifiers that would facilitate accurate matching of
drivers and their records.
(3) Report to congress.--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
evaluation and technology assessment, together with any
recommendations for appropriate administrative and
legislative actions.
In section 306(g) of the bill, strike ``amended--'' and all
that follows through ``(2) by'' and insert ``amended by''.
In section 332(a) of the bill--
(1) in paragraph (43) after ``East-West'' insert
``Intermodal'';
(2) strike paragraph (58), relating to Oklahoma City--MAPS
Link;
(3) in paragraph (90)--
(A) strike ``Commuter Rail'';
(B) after ``Northstar'' insert ``Corridor''; and
(C) strike the parenthetical phrase and insert the
following: ``(Downtown, Minneapolis-Anoka County-St.
Cloud)'';
(4) redesignate succeeding paragraphs accordingly; and
(5) add at the end the following:
(96) Pittsburgh North Shore-Central Business District
Corridor.
(97) Pittsburgh--Stage II Light Rail.
(98) Boston--North-South Rail Link.
(99) Spokane--South Valley Corridor Light Rail.
(100) Miami--Palmetto Metrorail.
In section 332(b) of the bill--
(1) strike paragraph (35), relating to Miami--Palmetto
Metrorail, and paragraph (57), relating to Pittsburgh--Stage
II Light Rail Reconstruction;
(2) redesignate succeeding paragraphs accordingly; and
(3) add at the end the following:
(70) California--North Bay Commuter Rail.
In the table contained in section 333 of the bill--
(1) in item 7 strike ``0.000'' and insert ``0.200'';
(2) in item 41 strike ``0.000'' and insert ``0.500'';
(3) in item 62 strike ``0.000'' and insert ``0.300'';
(4) in item 65 strike ``1.625'' each place it appears and
insert ``1.250'';
(5) strike item 66 and insert the following:
66 New York, NY West 72nd St. Intermodal 1.750
. Station..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) in item 73--
(A) strike ``1.750'' the first place it appears and insert
``2.250''; and
(B) strike ``1.750'' the second place it appears and insert
``2.750'';
(7) strike the line relating to item 77 (Mobile);
(8) strike the line relating to item 86 (Norwalk);
(9) in item 103--
(A) strike ``1.000'' and insert ``1.250''; and
(B) strike ``0.000'' and insert ``1.250'';
(10) in item 121 strike ``Stapleton, CO'' and insert
``Denver, CO Stapleton'';
(11) strike the line relating to item 126 (Tucson);
(12) in item 142 strike ``buses'' and insert ``Bus
Facility'';
(13) after item 149 insert the following:
15 Allegheny County, PA buses................ 0.000 1.500
0
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redesignate the items in the table contained in section 333
of the bill accordingly.
In title III of the bill, insert after section 339 the
following:
SEC. 340. CLEAN FUEL VEHICLES.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study
of the various low and zero emission fuel technologies for
transit vehicles, including compressed natural gas, liquified
natural gas, biodiesel fuel, battery, alcohol based fuel,
hybrid electric, fuel cell, and clean diesel to determine the
status of the development and use of such technologies, the
environmental benefits of such technologies under the Clean
Air Act, and the cost of such technologies and any associated
equipment.
(b) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2000, the
Comptroller General shall transmit to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing and
Urban Affairs of the Senate a report on the results of the
study, together with recommendations for incentives to
encourage the use of low and zero emission fuel technology
for transit vehicles.
Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
In title IV of the bill, insert after section 422 the
following:
SEC. 423. ELECTRONIC DATA STUDY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall contract with an
entity that is independent of the Department of
Transportation to conduct a study to identify, examine, and
evaluate current and future issues and policies related to
government access to data produced by electronic systems for
motor carrier regulatory enforcement. The entity shall have
demonstrated knowledge about the motor carrier industry,
motor carrier safety regulations, and the electronic
information industry.
(b) Inspector General.--The Office of the Inspector General
of the Department of Transportation shall approve the
statement of work of the entity referred to in subsection (a)
and approve the contract award under subsection (a). In
carrying out its responsibilities under this subsection, the
Office of the Inspector General shall perform such overview
and validation or verification of data as may be necessary to
ensure that the study to be conducted under subsection (a)
meets the requirements of subsection (a).
(c) Deadline.--The study to be conducted under subsection
(a) shall be completed not later than 2 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act. A report containing the results
of the study shall be submitted to the Secretary and
Congress.
(d) Funding.--Of amounts made available under section
127(a)(3)(H), $100,000 for fiscal year 1998, $200,000 for
fiscal year 1999, and $200,000 for fiscal year 2000 shall be
available to carry out this subsection.
Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
In section 508 of the bill--
(1) redesignate paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as paragraphs
(6), (7), and (8), respectively; and
(2) insert after paragraph (3) the following:
(4) determine whether to approve a revised formula for the
distribution of funds under section 104(b)(2) of title 23,
United States Code, for the congestion mitigation and air
quality improvement program due to the designation of new
nonattainment areas by the Environmental Protection Agency;
After section 603 of the bill, insert the following:
SEC. 604. NOTICE.
(a) Notice of Reprogramming.--If any funds authorized for
carrying out this title or the amendments made by this title
are subject to a reprogramming action that requires notice to
be provided to the Appropriations Committees of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, notice of such action shall
concurrently be provided to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure and the Committee on Science of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate.
(b) Notice of Reorganization.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall provide notice to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on
Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate, not later than 15
days before any major reorganization of any program, project,
or activity of the Department of Transportation for which
funds are authorized by this title or the amendments made by
this title.
SEC. 605. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM.
With the year 2000 fast approaching, it is the sense of
Congress that the Department of Transportation should--
(1) give high priority to correcting all 2-digit date-
related problems in its computer systems to ensure that those
systems continue to operate effectively in the year 2000 and
beyond;
(2) assess immediately the extent of the risk to the
operations of the Department of Transportation posed by the
problems referred to in paragraph (1), and plan and budget
for achieving Year 2000 compliance for all of its mission-
critical systems; and
(3) develop contingency plans for those systems that the
Department of Transportation is unable to correct in time.
In section 611(c) of the bill, in the matter proposed to be
inserted as section 307(b)(4)(A) of title 23, United States
Code, insert ``, consistent with the plan developed under
section 5506 of title 49,'' after ``advanced research
program''.
In section 611(c) of the bill, in the matter proposed to be
inserted as section 307(b)(4)(B)(ii) of title 23, United
States Code, strike ``assessment of failure risks'' and
insert ``the assessment of risks of failure, including from
seismic activity, vibration, and weather''.
In section 611(c) of the bill, in the matter proposed to be
inserted as section 307(b)(4)(B)(v) of title 23, United
States Code, strike ``Particulate'' and insert
``Environmental research, including particulate''.
In section 611(c) of the bill, in the matter proposed to be
inserted as section 307(b)(4)(B)(vii) of title 23, United
States Code, strike ``Prediction'' and insert ``Human
factors, including prediction''.
[[Page H1995]]
Strike paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 611(d) of the bill
and insert the following:
(1) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
``(A) Methods, materials, and testing to improve the
durability of surface transportation infrastructure
facilities and extend the life of bridge structures,
including new and innovative technologies to reduce corrosion
and tests simulating seismic activity, vibration, and
weather.'';
(2) by striking subparagraph (C);
(3) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C);
and
(4) by adding after subparagraph (C), as so redesignated,
the following new subparagraphs:
``(D) Research on the use of recycled materials, such as
paper and plastic fiber reinforcement systems.
``(E) New innovative technologies to enhance and facilitate
field construction and rehabilitation techniques for
minimizing disruption during repair and maintenance of
structures.
``(F) Expansion of knowledge of implementing life cycle
cost assessment, including establishing the appropriate
analysis period and discount rates, learning how to value and
properly consider user costs, determining tradeoffs between
reconstruction and rehabilitation, and establishing
methodologies for balancing higher initial costs of new
technologies and improved or advanced materials against lower
maintenance costs.
``(G) Standardized estimates of useful life under various
conditions for advanced materials of use in surface
transportation. Such estimates shall be developed in
conjunction with the National Institute of Standards and
Technology and other appropriate organizations.''.
In section 611(e) of the bill, strike paragraphs (1) and
(2) and insert the following:
(1) by striking subsections (c), (d), and (e) and inserting
the following:
``(c) Study of Future Strategic Highway Research Program.--
``(1) Study.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date
of enactment of the Building Efficient Surface Transportation
and Equity Act of 1998, the Secretary shall make a grant to,
or enter into a cooperative agreement or contract with, the
Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of
Sciences (referred to in this subsection as the ``Board'') to
conduct a study to determine the goals, purposes, research
agenda and projects, administrative structure, and fiscal
needs for a new strategic highway research program to replace
the program established under section 307(d) (as in effect on
the day before the date of enactment of the Building
Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of 1998), or
a similar effort.
``(B) Consultation.--In conducting the study, the Board
shall consult with the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials and such other entities as the
Board determines to be necessary to the conduct of the study.
``(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after making a grant
or entering into a cooperative agreement or contract under
subsection (a), the Board shall submit a final report on the
results of the study to the Secretary, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on
Science of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate.''; and
(2) by redesignating subsections (f), (g), and (h) as
subsections (d), (e), and (f).
In section 611(f) of the bill, strike ``307(c)'' and insert
``307(d)''.
In section 611(g) of the bill, strike ``307(e)'' and insert
``307(f)''.
In section 611(h) of the bill, in the matter proposed to be
added at the end of section 307 of title 23, United States
Code, redesignate subsection (f) as subsection (g).
At the end of section 611 of the bill, add the following
new subsection:
(j) Technological Innovation.--Section 307 is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Technological Innovation.--The programs and
activities carried out under this section shall be consistent
with the plan developed under section 5506 of title 49.''.
In section 612 of the bill, at the end of the matter
proposed to be inserted as section 313 of title 23, United
States Code, strike the closing quotation marks and the final
period and insert the following:
``(e) Annual Report.--Each State shall report annually to
the Secretary on the level of its funding for research and
development activities described in subsection (a)(5). A
State may provide such information as part of another report
that the State provides to the Secretary.''.
In section 623(b) of the bill, redesignate paragraphs (1),
(2), and (3) as paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), respectively.
In section 623(b) of the bill, insert before paragraph (2),
as so redesignated, the following new paragraph:
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, including
information obtained pursuant to section 307(b)(5)(F) and
(G)'' after ``modern highway technology'';
In section 623(b)(3) of the bill, as so redesignated,
insert ``, and in paragraph (1) of that subsection, by
inserting `concrete,' after `pavement,' '' after ``as
subsection (c)''.
In section 624 of the bill, in the matter proposed to be
inserted as section 5505(c)(2) of title 49, United States
Code, insert ``, except as provided in subsection (i),''
after ``competitive process''.
In section 624 of the bill, in the matter proposed to be
inserted as section 5505(g)(2) of title 49, United States
Code, insert ``and consistent with the plan developed under
section 5506'' after ``least annually''.
In section 624 of the bill, at the end of the matter
proposed to be inserted as section 5505 of title 49, United
States Code, strike the closing quotation marks and the final
period and insert the following:
``(18) University of Maine.
``(19) Tennessee Technological University.
``(20) Middle Tennessee State University.
``(21) The University of Maryland.''.
After section 632 of the bill, insert the following (and
conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly):
SEC. 633. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 55 of title 49,
United States Code, is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``Sec. 5506. Surface transportation research planning
``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall--
``(1) establish a strategic planning process, consistent
with section 306 of title 5, United States Code, for the
Department of Transportation to determine national
transportation research and technology development priorities
related to surface transportation;
``(2) coordinate Federal surface transportation research
and technology development activities;
``(3) measure the results of those activities and how they
impact the performance of the national surface transportation
system; and
``(4) ensure that planning and reporting activities carried
out under this subchapter are coordinated with all other
surface transportation planning and reporting requirements.
``(b) Implementation.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) provide for the integrated planning, coordination,
and consultation among the operating administrations, all
other Federal agencies with responsibility for surface
transportation research and technology development, State and
local governments, institutions of higher education,
industry, and other private and public sector organizations
engaged in surface transportation-related research and
development activities;
``(2) ensure that the Department's surface transportation
research and technology development programs do not duplicate
other Federal, State, or private sector research and
development programs; and
``(3) provide for independent validation of the scientific
and technical assumptions underlying the Department's surface
transportation research and technology development plans.
``(c) Surface Transportation Research and Technology
Development Strategic Plan.--
``(1) Development.--The Secretary shall develop an
integrated surface transportation research and technology
development strategic plan.
``(2) Contents.--The plan shall include--
``(A) an identification of the general goals and objectives
of the Department of Transportation for surface
transportation research and development;
``(B) a description of the roles of the Department of
Transportation and other Federal agencies in achieving the
goals identified under subparagraph (A), in order to avoid
unnecessary duplication of effort;
``(C) a description of the Department's overall strategy,
and the role of each of the operating administrations in
carrying out the plan over the next 5 years including a
description of procedures for coordination of its efforts
with the operating administrations and with other Federal
agencies;
``(D) an assessment of how State and local research and
technology development activities are contributing to the
achievement of the goals identified under subparagraph (A);
``(E) details of the Department's surface transportation
research and technology development programs, including
performance goals, resources needed to achieve those goals,
and performance indicators as described in section 1115(a) of
title 31, United States Code, for the next 5 years for each
area of research and technology development;
``(F) significant comments on the plan and its contents
obtained from outside sources; and
``(G) responses to significant comments obtained from the
National Research Council and other advisory bodies, and a
description of any corrective actions taken pursuant thereto.
``(3) National research council review.--The Secretary
shall enter into an agreement for the review by the National
Research Council of the details of each--
``(A) strategic plan or revision required under section 306
of title 5, United States Code;
``(B) performance plan required under section 1115 of title
31, United States Code; and
``(C) program performance report required under section
1116 of title 31, United States Code,
with respect to surface transportation research and
technology development.
``(4) Performance plans and reports.--In complying with
sections 1115 and 1116 of title 31, United States Code, the
Secretary shall include--
``(A) a summary of the results for the previous fiscal year
of surface transportation research and technology development
programs to which the Department of Transportation
contributes, along with--
[[Page H1996]]
``(i) an analysis of the relationship between those results
and the goals identified under paragraph (2)(A); and
``(ii) a description of the methodology used for assessing
the results; and
``(B) a description of significant surface transportation
research and technology development initiatives, if any,
undertaken during the previous fiscal year which were not in
the plan developed under paragraph (1), and any significant
changes in the plan from the previous year's plan.
``(d) Merit Review and Performance Measurement.--The
Secretary shall, within one year after the date of the
enactment of this section, transmit to the Congress a report
describing competitive merit review procedures for research
and technology development, and performance measurement
procedures for surface transportation research and technology
development and demonstrations.
``(e) Procurement Procedures.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) develop model procurement procedures that encourage
the use of advanced technologies; and
``(2) develop model transactions for carrying out and
coordinating Federal and State surface transportation
research and technology development activities.
``(f) Consistency With Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993.--The plans and reports developed under this
section shall be consistent with and incorporated as part of
the plans developed under section 306 of title 5, United
States Code, and sections 1115 and 1116 of title 31, United
States Code.
``Sec. 5507. Surface transportation-environment cooperative
research program
``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
establish and carry out a surface transportation and
environment cooperative research program.
``(b) Contents.--The program to be carried out under this
section shall include research designed to--
``(1) develop more accurate models for evaluating
transportation control measures and transportation system
designs that are appropriate for use by State and local
governments, including metropolitan planning organizations,
in designing implementation plans to meet Federal, State, and
local environmental requirements;
``(2) improve understanding of the factors that contribute
to the demand for transportation, including transportation
system design, demographic change, land use planning, and
communications and other information technologies; and
``(3) develop indicators of economic, social, and
environmental performance of transportation systems to
facilitate analysis of potential alternatives.
``(c) Advisory Board.--
``(1) Establishment.--In consultation with appropriate
Federal agencies, the Secretary shall establish an advisory
board to recommend environmental and energy conservation
research, technology, and technology transfer activities
related to surface transportation.
``(2) Membership.--The advisory board shall include--
``(A) representatives of State transportation and
environmental agencies;
``(B) transportation and environmental scientists and
engineers; and
``(C) representatives of metropolitan planning
organizations, transit operating agencies, and environmental
organizations.
``(d) National Academy of Sciences.--The Secretary may make
grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements with, the
National Academy of Sciences to carry out such activities
relating to the research, technology, and technology transfer
activities described in subsection (b) as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.
``(e) Funding.--Funding for carrying out this section shall
be derived from funds made available under section
127(a)(3)(F) of the Building Efficient Surface Transportation
and Equity Act of 1998.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 55 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 5505 the
following:
``5506. Surface transportation research planning.
``5507. Surface transportation-environment cooperative research
program.''.
In section 652(b)(4) of the bill, insert ``, and including
the handicapped'' after ``and motorcycles''.
In section 652(b)(7) of the bill, strike ``and'' at the
end.
In section 652(b)(8) of the bill, strike the period and
insert ``; and''.
At the end of section 652 of the bill, add the following
new paragraph:
(9) the development of a workforce capable of developing,
operating, and maintaining intelligent transportation
systems.
In section 654 of the bill, amend subsection (b) to read as
follows:
(b) Reporting.--The plan described in subsection (a) shall
be transmitted and updated as part of the plan developed
under section 5506 of title 49, United States Code.
At the end of section 655(c) of the bill, add the
following:
Such tests shall be designed for the collection of data to
permit objective evaluation of the results of the tests and
the derivation of cost-benefit information that is useful to
others contemplating the deployment of similar systems.
In section 655(d) of the bill, strike ``work shall
incorporate human factors research findings'' and insert
``work--
``(1) shall incorporate human factors research, which may
include research in the science of the driving process, to
improve the operational efficiency and safety of intelligent
transportation systems;
``(2) may incorporate research on environmental, weather,
and natural conditions that impact intelligent transportation
systems, including the effects of cold climates; and
``(3) may incorporate materials or magnetics research''.
Strike section 658 of the bill and redesignate section 659
as section 658. Conform the table of contents of the bill
accordingly.
After section 802 of the bill, insert the following:
SEC. 803. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM
ACT.
Section 203 of the National Sea Grant College Program Act
(33 U.S.C. 1122) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (5);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (17) as
paragraphs (5) through (16), respectively;
(3) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (F) of
paragraph (7), as so redesignated, as subparagraphs (D)
through (G), respectively; and
(4) by inserting after subparagraph (B) of paragraph (7),
as so redesignated, the following:
``(C) Lake Champlain (to the extent that such resources
have hydrological, biological, physical, or geological
characteristics and problems similar or related to those of
the Great Lakes);''.
Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
Modification To Amendment No. 1 Offered By Mr. Shuster
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
be modified with the modification that I have placed at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification offered by Mr. Shuster to the Shuster amendment number
1, printed in Part II of House Report 105-476:
Modify the manager's amendment to correct the following
errors:
(1) on page 15, paragraph (26), strike ``227'' and insert
``277''.
(2) on page 25, in item 1504, strike ``Corrido'' and insert
``Corridor''.
(3) on page 25, insert the following two new items at the
end of the table:
1508 New York........................ Reconstruct Flushing 5.000
Avenue between Humboldt
Street and Cypress
Avenue, and between
Porter Street and
Cypress Avenue.
1509 New York........................ Reconstruct Flushing 3.000
Avenue between Wycoff
Avenue and Gates Street.
(4) on page 25, insert the following paragraph after the
table:
(101) In the table contained in section 127(c) of the bill:
(A) in item 241, strike ``32.000'' and insert ``24.000''.
(B) in item 248, strike ``intermodal center at Stapleton''
and insert ``Broadway Viaduct''.
(C) in item 257, strike ``lande'' and insert ``lanes''.
(D) in item 708, strike ``3.000'' and insert ``6.000''.
(E) in item 398, strike ``Little Blue Expressway'' and
insert ``the Eastern Jackson Co. Expressway''.
(F) in item 398, strike ``3.000'' and insert ``6.000''.
(G) in item 312, strike ``8.000'' and insert ``4.000''.
(H) strike item 205 (relating to the Missouri Connector).
(I) in item 774, strike ``2.230'' and insert ``4.000''.
(J) in item 1081, strike ``4.000'' and insert ``2.000''.
(K) in item 1221, strike ``7.500'' and insert ``1.770''.
(L) in item 1337, strike ``1.770'' and insert ``2.330''.
(M) in item 1384, strike ``2.000'' and insert ``7.500''.
(5) on page 34, in paragraph (5), insert ``1.750'' in the
third column (relating to fiscal year 2000).
(6) on page 34, insert after paragraph (13) the following:
(14) strike the line relating to item 24 (Chatham, GA).
Mr. SHUSTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the modification be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 405, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
[[Page H1997]]
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, this is a manager's amendment, technical in nature. It
has been cleared both on our side and with the minority.
I rise in support of the committee amendment to H.R. 2400.
The Committee amendment contains issues worked out in cooperation
with other committees that had jurisdictional claims over H.R. 2400--
the Science Committee, the Resources Committee and the Commerce
Committee.
I am pleased that we were able to include several provisions that
were worked out on a bipartisan basis with those committees.
I particularly want to thank Chairman Young of the Resources
Committee, Chairman Bliley of the Commerce Committee and Chairman
Sensenbrenner of the Science Committee for their cooperation in
expediting the consideration of BESTEA.
The amendment also contains several noncontroversial issues and
project description changes.
All provisions in the committee amendment have been worked out in a
bipartisan manner and are acceptable to the Democratic members.
There are several Members who had urged that certain provisions be
included that we were unable to work out in the short time available.
We will continue to work with those Members to resolve their issues
when we go to conference with the other body.
I am including a full summary of the committee amendment for the
Record.
I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
Summary of Committee Amendment to H.R. 2400
title i--highways
Provides that newly-designated nonattainment areas are
eligible for CMAQ funding (but not part of the CMAQ formula).
Provides that the Secretary of the Interior develop a new
formula for the distribution of Indian Reservation Road funds
by fiscal year 2000.
Establishes a pilot program to allow Indian tribes to
directly administer their Indian Reservation Road funds.
Adds transit vehicles signal prioritization projects to
Federal share provisions under section 120(c) of title 23.
Makes clarifying amendment to section 125(d)(1) of the bill
regarding provisions relating to cooperation of local
officials in developing State transportation plan.
Clarifies that States can continue to divide or segment
projects, in accordance with current regulations regarding
division of segmenting of projects, in carrying out high
priority projects designated by Congress.
Makes various corrections and additions to high priority
projects as designated in section 127(c) of the bill.
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study on practices of
States relating to service food signs.
Amends current, and adds additional, High Priority
Corridors.
Clarifies that States can procure under a single contract
environmental and engineering and design work if the State
reviews the objectivity of the analysis.
Allows the District of Columbia to construct a substitute
project in lieu of Barney Circle Freeway project.
Allows States to permit electric vehicles with fewer than
two occupants to operate on high occupancy vehicle lanes.
Makes technical and conforming changes.
title ii--highway safety
Allows States for two years to use section 402 funds to
purchase television and radio time for highway safety public
services messages and requires a study on the effectiveness
of the messages.
title iii--transit
Amends sec. 306 to restore current law with regard to false
claims made under the transit title.
Amends sec. 332 to alter project descriptions of new start
transit projects.
Amends sec. 333 to alter project descriptions and funding
levels of bus and bus facility projects.
Directs the Comptroller General to study the various clean
fuel technologies for transit vehicles and make
recommendations regarding incentives to encourage the use of
such technologies.
title iv--motor carrier safety
Adds new section 423 to direct the Secretary to contract
with an independent entity to conduct a study on government
access to electronic data for motor carrier regulatory
enforcement (amended and relocated from Title VI).
title v--programmatic reforms and streamlining
Provides that a revised formula for distribution of CMAQ
funds shall be considered for mid-course corrections bill.
title vi--transportation research
The Manager's Amendment contains several provisions
developed in cooperation with the Committee on Science:
Section 604 requires notice to Congress if the Department
of Transportation reprograms research funds or reorganizes
programs authorized by Title 6 of BESTEA.
Section 605 contains a sense of Congress regarding the year
2000 computer problem.
Requires a study on future research requirements for
highway pavement.
Section 633 establishes a planning process, consistent with
the Government Performance and Results Act, at the Department
of Transportation to oversee surface transportation research.
Establishes a surface transportation-environment
cooperative research program.
Makes some additional minor technical changes to the
research title of BESTEA.
title viii--recreational boating safety program
Amends National Sea Grant College Program Act relating to
research funds for Lake Champlain.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar).
(Mr. Oberstar asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank Chairmen Shuster
and Petri and Ranking Member Rahall for the cooperative manner in which
we developed this amendment. Through their willingness to address
Member concerns, we were able to agree on a significant number of
Member requests. We have developed a good package that further
strengthens BESTEA. I want to highlight a few of the provisions.
First, the manager's amendment includes provisions that will provide
CMAQ funding for newly-designated non-attainment communities. Because
the EPA is currently reviewing the criteria for non-attainment, it is
important that our bill clarify that if the new criteria lead to
designation of additional non-attainment areas, those areas would
qualify for funding.
Also, the amendment ensures continued CMAQ funding for communities
that progress from non-attainment to maintenance status.
At the request of our friends on the Science Committee, this
amendment adds several provisions from their surface transportation
research bill, H.R. 860. For example, the provisions clarify the
Department of Transportation's responsibility to develop a strategic
planning process for surface transportation research and technology
development activities. I want to note that these provisions are
designed to be consistent with the Government Performance and Results
Act requirements and not a separate effort.
Also, the Science Committee provisions establish a cooperative
research program to develop better tools for State and local
governments to use when evaluating the complex economic, social, and
environmental impacts various transportation alternatives have on
communities.
The amendment includes a number of additional provisions to continue
fine tuning BESTEA. These include limited changes to Member highway and
transit project requests and we will continue to address their concerns
about these very important projects.
I again thank Chairman Shuster and Petri, Ranking Member Rahall, and
all the Members of the Committee who worked with us to improve BESTEA
and I urge adoption of the en bloc amendment.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment number 2
printed in Part II of House Report 105-476.
Amendment No. 2 Offered By Mr. Davis of Illinois
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part II, amendment numbered 2 offered by Mr. Davis of
Illinois:
In section 330(j), strike ``$42,000,000'' and insert
``$150,000,000''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 405, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
{time} 1645
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment which seeks to
expand and improve the Access to Jobs Grant program. This amendment
would increase funding for this program by $108 million per year. The
Access to Jobs legislation assists welfare recipients and low-income
individuals to commute from where they live to where
[[Page H1998]]
jobs are located. This increase in moneys is designated to address the
fact that in too many cases, in both urban and rural areas, welfare
recipients and low-income individuals are isolated from the jobs they
want and need.
Last year Congress enacted legislation to move people from welfare to
work. We imposed strict time limits and other restrictions that will
result in the termination of benefits for an estimated 2 million people
by the year 2002. One of the greatest obstacles many current welfare
recipients face in getting work is literally getting to the jobs.
Welfare recipients and low-income individuals often live, almost by
definition, in impoverished communities devoid of job opportunities.
Ninety-four percent of welfare recipients do not have cars, low wage
earners often do not have cars. They are dependent on public
transportation to get to areas with jobs. If the public transit is
inadequate, the jobs become inaccessible. People cannot move from
welfare to work if the people on welfare cannot get to work.
Currently, two-thirds of all new jobs are being created in the
suburbs. Many suburban communities report severe labor shortages
because they cannot find enough workers looking for entry-level jobs.
This amendment helps to ensure that those welfare recipients who want
jobs will not be denied because they do not have access to
transportation to get to and from work.
Too many welfare recipients and low-income individuals are isolated
from potential job opportunities because existing public transportation
systems are either inadequate or nonexistent. The Community
Transportation Association of America has found that 40 percent of all
rural communities have no public transportation whatsoever. When
transit is present, it often does not operate at night or on weekends,
times when many low-wage or entry-level jobs are performed. By filling
the gaps in transit services, we can give people the chance to get to
the jobs they seek.
For example, in Chicago an innovative Suburban Jobs Links program is
doing just that. Buses carry workers from the cities to their jobs in
neighboring suburbs. An increase in funding for this program would
allow it to expand and help other communities. If only one out of three
welfare families are successful in getting to a job and are able to
work, then America wins and this program will have paid big dividends.
Therefore, I urge its immediate adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that in the course of the discussion
of the rule of this bill, in the course, a lot of people came to the
floor of the House of Representatives in the course of the last few
weeks, as well, saying that the scope of this bill is too large, that
an increase of over 40 percent in transportation funds over 6 years is
a budget buster. And yet the amendment we have before us indicates that
the bill is not large enough, and the hope of the gentleman in offering
this amendment is that we add some additional hundred plus million
dollars to the bill to meet a particular need, that despite the fact
that we do include a $42 million Access to Jobs pilot program in the
bill, and in addition in this bill there is some $20 billion, $20
billion in formula funds for over 6 years that can be used for the
needs of people who want to go from welfare to work and to meet their
transportation needs.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we have mass transit and many other
transit operations of a particular nature already in existence around
the United States, we do not need to pile on a lot of money that will
ultimately be used for administration rather than help real people find
real jobs. We are willing to experiment in this bill with a pilot
program, but I think before we know what we are talking about we should
not start throwing additional money at it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I really want to commend the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for this amendment because I am from a very
rural district that has 26 counties, 3 of which are among the highest
welfare counties in the State of Missouri, and after numerous meetings
with my welfare recipients the biggest stumbling block they have to
getting a job is, like the gentleman says, transportation, and they
might have to drive an hour and a half, 2 hours to get to a job and
they have no means of transportation because we do not have the funds
in Missouri, particularly in my district, to beef up our very minimal
transportation systems. And certainly they are not presently in use for
this particular purpose.
So I just want to ask my colleagues to really think about this
because if we truly want our welfare recipients to lead productive,
independent lives, then we really need to also put our money where our
mouths are and help make a real job a reality for these folks. So I
will happily support the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease), a member of the committee.
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Chairman, with the greatest personal respect for my
colleagues from Illinois and Missouri, I oppose the gentleman from
Illinois' amendment to increase funding for this program from the $42
million included in the bill to approximately $150 million per year.
While I agree that providing transportation for welfare recipients to
get to jobs is critical, I question whether increasing the funding for
the pilot program contained in this bill is the best approach to
achieving this worthy result.
This pilot program promotes new and innovative approaches to
providing transportation and makes funding available to nontraditional
transit grant recipients in addition to public transit agencies. There
is concern among some in the transit community that a new program that
is large and proscriptive is not only unnecessary but would take
flexibility and control away from transit agencies whose very mission
it is to provide access to jobs.
There also are significant transportation resources for access to
jobs activities under a number of federally funded social services
programs already in place. These include the Department of Health and
Human Services Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Department
of Labor's Welfare to Work program comprising $3 billion over 2 years
and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Bridges to Work
program.
Should the pilot program contained in this bill prove to be
successful in conjunction with these many other programs of Federal
agencies, we can then reevaluate whether to increase the funding in
future transportation legislation. But I believe at the moment it is
premature to raise the funding level to the amount proposed in the
amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly support
the amendment by my colleague from Illinois. Mr. Chairman, today I had
lunch with the CEO of United Airlines, Jerry Greenwald, who sits on the
President's Welfare to Work Task Force. I want to commend United for
employing 500 former welfare recipients with the goal of 2,000 by the
year 2000. This is a success story.
But he told me what many of us already know, that the most serious
barriers for former welfare workers entering the work force are, one,
child care, and transportation. Through reverse commuter programs,
transit vouchers and van pools many of these people can get to work.
Mr. Chairman, let us put our money where our mouth is and get welfare
to work going. Increase this budget and support this amendment.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. I recognize the
other side is entitled to close debate on their amendment, so I just
would proceed to conclude by saying that while I understand the
gentleman's interest in this
[[Page H1999]]
program, we have included funds in this bill for this program.
A lot of Members have expressed concern in debate, and a lot of
others who have looked at this bill, that we are already spending more
than we feel is prudent. To increase spending beyond what the committee
has asked for is something that I think is highly problematic.
I would think that this would be an interesting test to see whether
Congress would like to stay within the parameters of this bill or feels
that the committee sort of undershot and we should be spending even
more than we have been asked for in this bill. I think it best to plan
and see that we walk before we run. We do have $42 million in this bill
plus $20 billion that is eligible if State and local transit
authorities feel these needs are needs that need to be addressed. We do
not need to add another $100 million dollars to a bill that is already
quite generous in the transportation area.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I just want to specify that the chairman
does understand that this is an authorization, these are not contract
authority dollars?
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I understand it is an authorization, but we
had the senior member of the committee from my State and others in the
authorization committee, appropriation committee, which would have to
actually appropriate money, saying that this was taking away from
priorities that they felt were important. Now we are adding to their
burden, I think.
But I would be interested to see how they vote on this amendment
because if they really are concerned and consistent, this would receive
a ``no'' vote, not a ``yes'' vote from those gentlemen.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the excellent
amendment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
The simple fact of the matter is that lack of transportation is
frequently a barrier to employment whether one resides in an urban or
rural environment. This amendment would raise the general fund
authorization contained in the bill for the welfare to work program.
I know that from a rural perspective these programs hold great
promise. In my home State of West Virginia we have undertaken four
welfare to work pilot programs already, including in Greenbrier and
Wayne Counties which I have the honor of representing. This amendment
is about access to jobs, about access to training, about access to a
better life for many Americans, and I urge my colleagues to accept it.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox).
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Davis amendment to BESTEA. This would further build upon the
committee's commitment to encouraging access to jobs and moving people
from welfare to work.
I commend the gentleman for offering this amendment which enhances an
already strong portion of the underlying bill. I was pleased to see the
Senate also acted, through the efforts of the Senators from
Pennsylvania, Illinois and New York, to include a strong commitment to
moving people from welfare to work.
The gentleman from Illinois shows a great commitment and vision in
offering his amendment as he recognizes the need for a national
approach to this problem. Few people on welfare own cars and few can
afford other transportation means to get to jobs and job training.
BESTEA and the gentleman's perfecting amendment further our belief in
empowering people with the jobs and training they need to achieve self-
sufficiency. I strongly urge support for the Davis amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
{time} 1700
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Davis
amendment. First of all, we must go to the appropriations. There are
checks and balances. That is something we have to do. This is a general
fund authorization.
Second of all, we have spoken in the last 4 years about welfare
reform. It is time for us to put our money where our mouth is. The
argument that this bill is a pilot program and cannot increase too
quickly, forget about it. We have told people in 5 years they have to
be off welfare, by the year 2002. We do not have that much time.
Let us have bipartisan agreement that we are going to get people to
jobs that exist. There are 2 million people out there that are going to
be removed from welfare to work over the next 5 years, and only 6
percent of them have cars.
Now, what are you going to do about that? This amendment goes right
to the heart of that situation. This is getting people to work. This is
what we want, work, not welfare.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois for offering this amendment and
for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, last year we passed a welfare-to-work bill, knowing
that that bill was not the sound bill it should be for those who are
moving from welfare to work. This amendment that my friend has put on
the floor is one that will help us to move this generation of welfare
recipients to work.
One in 20 welfare recipients in this country own a car. That is a
frightening statistic. When one considers that when we passed welfare
reform we placed strict time limits on the welfare recipients, we can
ill-afford to not pass this amendment. I urge all Members to pass the
Davis amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) if he would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Boswell).
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I think it comes down to this: Do we
really want people to go off of welfare and on to workfare? As probably
some Members know, some of us in the States got into that a little bit
ahead of even the national level.
I am like the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson). I have 27
counties, and we have no mass transportation. One thing we discovered
is if we are serious about getting people from welfare to work, they
have got to have child care and they have got to have transportation,
or it is not going to work. It simply is not going to work.
So I encourage support of the amendment of the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Davis. It is something we have to do if we are going to
get this job done. I think we all want very much to get this job done,
to get people to work.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) if he would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to my
esteemed colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, who
contributes so much to the educational issues, and I thank the author
of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). I introduced legislation
earlier this year which incorporates this same concept, and I frankly
would have put more money into this if we had been able to. But I
commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the leadership of
the minority side for supporting this.
Here is why this is such a good idea. If one out of every 300
families on welfare in America, one out of every 300, gets a job as a
result of this program, as a result of being moved from where they live
to where the jobs are, this pays for itself as a result of people
leaving the welfare rolls and paying taxes.
In other words, the success level for this to be budget-neutral is
very, very low. It is a great idea.
In my area, United Parcel Company is helping to do a similar thing,
where
[[Page H2000]]
they are moving welfare recipients from Camden, New Jersey, to a UPS
terminal at the Philadelphia airport. It works, the Davis amendment
works, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes, the balance
of my time, to the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this is a reality check amendment. If you
voted for welfare reform, then look in the mirror and say, did I really
mean it? Was I serious about that? If you were, then you really ought
to be serious about providing the means for people to get from where
they are to where the jobs are.
We made a start on it in this legislation with a pilot program of $42
million. I think it is well-crafted, I think it is a good initiative,
but it is woefully inadequate in dollars to do the job that needs to be
done.
A study of 43 large metropolitan areas found that communities with
the longest job commute times had the highest rates of unemployment. In
Cleveland, inner-city residents can reach only about 8 to 15 percent of
entry level jobs in a reasonable time with current public
transportation. There are many other similar examples.
Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize, this is a general fund
authorization. It does not require offsets. It is under the caps for
the budget hawks.
The Committee on Appropriations will decide among the many priorities
that they have to contend with which of the funds will go to this
program and which to other programs. It will not come out of contract
authority dollars. It is reasonable and fair. It is far less than the
Senate is providing in their version of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, finally, I want to say in Chicago, and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and I were there a year ago to
look at their transportation, we saw their effective welfare-to-work
program. It was a pilot, if you will. It was the spark of imagination
for the program we have in this basic legislation.
But, fundamentally, I drew this idea from my daughter and I who works
for Jubilee Jobs in Northeast-Northwest Washington, in the Adams Morgan
area. Trying to place people in work who are coming out of the welfare
shelters, who are coming out, dropouts from the welfare system, she
cannot get them to their jobs because they cannot afford
transportation. If you cannot match the person with the job through a
means of transport, then you have failed.
Let us not fail. Let us pass this amendment.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this vital
amendment that will enable thousands of people in my community to
obtain access to employment opportunities they may otherwise be denied.
The additional $108 million that this amendment will provide for
welfare-to-work programs is crucial if our nation is to ensure that our
current prosperity benefits all people in America.
Back in my hometown of Chicago, less than 10 percent of welfare
recipients own or have access to an automobile.
That's right less than 10 percent.
At the same time, job growth in the Chicago metropolitan area is
greatest in areas that are accessible only by car.
Obviously, this poses a significant obstacle to the people who need
employment most.
A serious mismatch exists in Chicago and countless other urban areas
in our nation between job growth and the location of low-income
communities.
The lack of affordable housing in many growing suburbs ensures that
low-income people, the people who would fill the myriad service jobs
that are being created in new suburban strip malls and office parks,
can't live where job creation is most dynamic.
So we must address this problem.
We must take action to get people to where the jobs are.
Failure to do so means we are cutting off from jobs and financial
security the very people who we have mandated to work under new welfare
reform regulations.
So we cannot fail in this task and we cannot fail to pass this
important amendment that is fundamental to building a fairer economy
that includes all Americans.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. America can only work
if we enable all our people access to jobs.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 405, further proceedings
on the amendment will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 3 printed in part II of
House Report 105-476.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Roukema
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mrs. Roukema:
Strike subsection (b) of section 102 and insert the
following:
(b) Affirmative Action Encouraged; Discrimination or
Preferential Treatment Prohibited.--
(1) Affirmative action encouraged.--It is the policy of the
United States--
(A) to expand the applicant pool for transportation
contracts in order to increase competition;
(B) to encourage participation by businesses owned by women
and minorities in bidding for transportation contracts;
(C) to recruit qualified women and minorities into the
applicant pool for transportation contracts; and
(D) to encourage transportation contractors--
(i) to request businesses owned by women and minorities to
bid for transportation contracts; and
(ii) to include qualified women and minorities into an
applicant pool for transportation contracts;
so long as such expansion, encouragement, recruitment,
request, or inclusion does not involve granting a preference,
based in whole or in part on race, color, national origin, or
sex, in selecting any person for the relevant contract.
(2) Prohibition against discrimination or preferential
treatment.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
governmental entity shall, in connection with a
transportation contract--
(A) intentionally discriminate against, or grant a
preference to, any person or group based in whole or in part
on race, color, national origin, or sex; or
(B) require or encourage a contractor or subcontractor to
discriminate intentionally against, or grant a preference to,
any person or group based in whole or in part on race, color,
national origin, or sex.
(3) Definitions.--As used in this subsection--
(A) the term ``transportation contract'' means any contract
or subcontract in connection with any project paid for in
whole or in part with funds derived from amounts authorized
to be appropriated by this Act; and
(B) the term ``preference'' means an advantage of any kind,
and includes a quota, set-aside, numerical goal, timetable,
or other numerical objective.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 405, the gentlewoman from
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) and a Member opposed each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment, as has been submitted and printed, would
end the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program under BESTEA.
The amendment reaffirms, and I want to be very clear about this,
reaffirms our encouragement of affirmative action through expansion of
the applicant pool and active recruitment, and I stress active
recruitment, of qualified women and minorities.
At the same time, this amendment makes it clear that such
encouragement and recruitment does not involve granting a preference or
fulfilling a quota or a set-aside.
In other words, and I want my colleagues to understand this, in other
words, we are reforming affirmative action as we know it today. That
is, it should go back to its initial roots of nondiscrimination.
We are not suggesting that there is no discrimination. In other
words, we are reforming affirmative action as we know it while
protecting the civil rights of all people.
Now, the preference program, DBE as it is known, the preference
program at the heart of this issue is a provision of BESTEA, and it
states that, and we should be clear about this, because there is
misinformation being spread around. It states that not less than 10
percent shall be expended with small businesses owned and controlled by
[[Page H2001]]
``socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.''
This is a floor set by the Department of Transportation that must be
met. If it is not met, then the administration can and does sanction.
The bill itself says, ``Not less than 10 percent of the amounts
authorized shall be expended'' to small businesses controlled by
socially and economically disadvantaged. It is a clear quota.
At a hearing held recently this past year in the Committee on the
Judiciary, Mr. Chairman, we heard that this preference resulted in many
subcontractors being denied a transportation contract, despite having
by far the lowest bid. To represent only one subcontractor, Malcolm
Drilling, Inc., he testified that they were discriminated against
merely because the general contractor did not use enough minority or
women-owned subcontractors.
As a result, the contract was awarded to the next lowest bidder at a
bid of $3 million more. This was just one relatively small contract. So
the Federal dollars at work cost the taxpayers $3 million more in this
specific case.
There are many other instances. I will not go into them now, but I do
want them to be included in the Record, a company in Wyoming to the
tune of $345,000, and another one in Iowa and so on. These qualified
under the 10 percent set-aside for disadvantaged business enterprises.
This is a waste, a clear waste, of taxpayer dollars. Competitive
bidding is intended to save money. Not requiring at least a 10 percent
set-aside has made the point of competitive bidding moot, if not some
would say a joke.
Governments have been imposing quotas, preferences and set-asides in
the goal of eliminating discrimination, but instead the actual real
world has resulted in reverse discrimination.
Now, my amendment explicitly reaffirms the original concept of our
Affirmative Action Program that through vigorous and systematic
outreach, recruitment and marketing efforts among qualified women and
minorities, we would be reaching those who are out of the loop, so-to-
speak. The amendment explicitly reaffirms and requires outreach
programs.
The amendment also seeks to restore the color-blind principle to
Federal law by prohibiting the Federal Government from granting any
preference to any person based on whose qualifications were either
race, color or national origin or sex-based.
When affirmative action, and this I thought was very interesting in
doing my research for this amendment, going back to the Kennedy
Administration's Executive order that established this principle in
1963. It was specifically applied through the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The goals were promotion and assurance of equal opportunity without
regard to race, creed, color or national origin, encouragement of
positive measures towards equal opportunity for all qualified people,
and expansion and strengthening of efforts to promote full equality of
employment opportunity.
{time} 1715
That, to me, is a reflection of exactly what we have here in my
amendment. That was the original Kennedy initiative.
Before opponents of my amendment raise their voices, let me also add
for clarity, here, that this legislation absolutely maintains this
Nation's existing antidiscrimination laws. If it did not, I would not
be proposing it here on the floor today. But it maintains existing
civil rights laws which are there as a remedy for individuals who are
victims of discrimination. Further, it is consistent with civil rights
laws that prohibit any discrimination.
Mr. Chairman, I want Members to know that over time I have been a
strong supporter of affirmative action. However, over the course of the
years I have watched the implementation of affirmative action amount to
the use of discriminatory quotas, set-asides, preferences, and
timetables based on sex and race. This is evidence, I believe, of the
law of unintended consequences.
That is why we should be reforming comprehensively affirmative
action. But we have been unable to get that to the floor, a total
reform. Indeed, I had fervently hoped that by this time in our session
the Committee on the Judiciary would have reported that. In the absence
of an overall reform, I thought this was the best vehicle to bring the
issue before the public. It is very precise in this bill, as I have
outlined it.
I know, of course, that discrimination exists today in America. There
is no denying it. But we cannot attack discrimination with a different
style of discrimination. Discrimination, that is, the reverse
discrimination that I see, is the consequence of these set-asides and
quotas. Discrimination in the name of equal treatment is, in my
opinion, an oxymoron.
Mr. Chairman, affirmative action did its job in its day, but the day
it became more quotas than opportunity is the day that, in my opinion,
it became part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Equal opportunity has always been at the core of the American spirit.
It is time that we return to that core, and apply it equally for all
people in our society, while protecting the civil rights of those who
need continued protecting, and assure that the law is applied equally
to all people.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment, and
request the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
(Mr. Shuster asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to
me.
Mr. Chairman, in accordance with the agreement we made in the
committee with negotiating a delicately-balanced compromise in this
bill, we agreed, and the bipartisan leadership of our committee, to
oppose all amendments that the bipartisan leadership did not agree to.
I, therefore, must reluctantly state my opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am sympathetic to my colleague's position opposing
continuation of the DBE requirement in BESTEA.
However, I have made an agreement to oppose any DBE reforms in
exchange for a balanced, bipartisan bill that provides maximum funding
for America's transportation needs.
There have been a number of court challenges to the DBE program
including a decision by the Supreme Court that casts doubt on the
constitutionality of the program.
I have been concerned that attempts to repeal the DBE requirement
could backfire--resulting in findings that could potentially strengthen
claims that the program is constitutional.
I believe the best approach is to allow the courts to resolve the
issue.
I am pleased that we have included language in BESTEA, similar to
language included in the Senate-passed bill, that would prohibit DOT
from withholding funds from grant recipients where a Federal court has
issued a final order finding the DBE requirement unconstitutional. This
provision should ensure that transit agencies, such as Houston Metro,
that are under such orders, do not have their Federal funds withheld.
BESTEA also requires a GAO study that would examine whether there is
continued evidence of discrimination against small businesses owned and
controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. I
believe that this study will lay the groundwork for future reforms.
For these reasons, I must reluctantly oppose the gentlelady's
amendment.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Roukema amendment. The
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema)
would recklessly end an important program that has successfully
increased the participation of minority-owned businesses in the
Federal-aid highway and transit programs.
Let us be clear, the DBE program does not involve set-asides,
preferences, or quotas. Indeed, the DBE program requires States to
establish their own voluntary DBE goals and make a good-faith effort to
achieve these goals. The DBE goals can be waived if there are not
sufficient minority contractors available to meet the targets. In
addition, the Department of Transportation has never punished a State
for failing to meet its voluntary goals.
[[Page H2002]]
The Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program ensures that small
businesses that are owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals will have a fair opportunity to compete for
federally-funded highway and transit contracts.
Prior to enactment of the DBE program in 1982, minority-owned
businesses participated in only about 2 percent of all contracts in the
Federal-aid highway program. Following enactment of DBE, minority
participation has risen to roughly 9 percent of all contracts.
Since 1987, women-owned businesses have also benefited greatly from
the DBE program. According to Federal Highway Administration figures,
contracts to women-owned businesses have increased from 2.6 percent in
fiscal year 1986 to 6.7 percent in fiscal year 1996. Nevertheless,
while women own one-third of all construction firms, they still only
get 19 percent of business receipts.
The Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program has been instrumental
in promoting equal opportunity for all citizens to fully participate in
our national economy. Now is not the time to turn back this effort.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Charles Canady), chairman of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
The ideal of equality under the law for all Americans is an ideal
supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people. That
ideal is at the heart of the American experience. We all know that in
our history as Americans we have not fully lived up to that ideal, but
we also know that future generations of Americans will judge us by how
well we ground the laws of the land on that fundamental principle.
The amendment now before this House is solidly based on the ideal of
equality under the law. Like the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964,
this amendment recognizes that each American has the right to be
treated by our government not as a member of a particular race or
gender group, but as an individual citizen, equal in the eyes of the
law.
The amendment is based on the conviction that it is morally wrong for
the United States government to give some Americans benefits because of
their race or gender, while denying other Americans opportunities
because they belong to the wrong groups.
Let us be clear about it, despite the denials that we hear, under the
transportation program, that is exactly what is happening every day.
Contracts and subcontracts are awarded because of the race or gender of
the people who are receiving those contracts or subcontracts. That is
an undeniable fact.
Race and gender preferences undermine the dignity of all Americans.
To some Americans, the system of preferences says, your government will
deny you a job or some other opportunity because you are the wrong
gender or ethnic background. To other Americans, the system of
preferences says, you will not be expected to compete as an equal, but
will be measured by a lower standard than individuals of another gender
or race.
Both messages are hurtful, both messages are demeaning, both messages
are demoralizing, and both messages are contrary to the basic American
principle of respect for the individual.
We will never overcome discrimination by practicing discrimination.
The way to mend affirmative action is by eliminating the divisive
system of preferences based on race and gender, and reaffirming the
original concept of affirmative action through vigorous and systematic
outreach, recruitment, and marketing efforts.
Preferential policies are a dead end. As the Federal Government
classifies, sorts, and divides Americans by their race and gender, it
sends a powerful and perverse message to the American people that we
should judge one another on the basis of race and gender. That is
exactly the wrong message for us to be sending. That is a message which
only reinforces prejudice and discrimination in our society.
President Clinton has quite rightly called on Americans to transform
the problem of prejudice into the promise of unity. He has spoken of
our primary allegiance to the values America stands for, calling for us
to build one America.
The system of race and gender preferences stands as a massive
impediment to a united America, in which all Americans are treated as
individuals who are equal in the eyes of the law. Congress can
demonstrate its allegiance to fundamental American values by adopting
this amendment, and ending the use of race and gender preferences in
the transportation program.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose
this amendment. I want the record to be clear. This is a proposal that
has been worked out. It is the same language that is in the Senate
bill. It was an agreement within the committee. Clearly, this is meant
to be corrective action.
If it was true that we no longer needed the DBE program, I would be
the first person to want to give it up. All of my political career I
have had to come to the forefront to try to defend and make
opportunities; not to be better than anyone else, and certainly not to
lower standards, but to make opportunities for those women and those
minorities who do not get them without a program.
It is unconscionable that we would stand to deny people who can work
hard, people that just do not look like white men, and defend their
ability as Americans, as citizens, as persons who work just as hard, to
get a simple opportunity.
This is a sad day to see that we still have people who are willing to
deny people who work hard, who take on the same responsibility, are not
asking for anything, they are only asking for an opportunity. I oppose
this amendment.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, the bill provides in section 102, ``Not
less than 10 percent of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under
titles I, III, and VI of this Act shall be expended with small business
concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals.''
The underlying statute defines, at 15 U.S.C. 637, ``The contractor
shall presume that socially and economically disadvantaged individuals
include black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian
Pacific Americans, and other minorities. * * *'' This bill sets aside a
quota on the basis of race.
The facts are uncontrovertible: race determines who gets contracts
under this statute, and it is wrong. We cannot do good by doing bad. We
cannot lift some people up on the basis of their race without putting
other people down on the basis of their race. It is inherently unfair.
In the new biography of Jackie Robinson, there is a very touching
quotation of a letter.
I quote: ``Late in his career he wrote an eloquently spare letter to
a white New Orleans journalist who had abused him in print: `I wish you
could comprehend how unfair and un-American it is for the accident of
birth to make such a difference to you.' ''
Are there other ways of taking care of the fact that we do not start
life equally? Of course there are. The amendment of the gentlewoman
from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) does that: Take a look at somebody's
actual effort to try to overcome the obstacles that they have been
presented with; give a preference on the basis of someone who has never
had a contract before; take account of the individual. But do not judge
on the basis of their race.
How can we explain to somebody that it is fair that ``You would have
had had this contract, but your skin is the wrong color''?
Mr. Chairman, it was not that long ago that this issue was brought to
the Supreme Court on the fundamental question of whether it was
acceptable
[[Page H2003]]
for the units of government in our country to use race. In 1954 the
Supreme Court said it was not.
In Brown vs. The Board of Education, the Supreme Court reversed the
horror of Plessy versus Ferguson, in which the Supreme Court had said
separate but equal was okay. And in striking down Plessy versus
Ferguson, the Supreme Court of the United States said it is
stigmatizing, it is inherently wrong, for the government to make
distinctions on the basis of race.
{time} 1730
Justice Douglas, nobody's right-wing conservative, himself put it
this way in 1974: ``There is no constitutional right for any race to be
preferred. There is no superior person by constitutional standards. A *
* * [person] * * * who is white is entitled to no advantage by reason
of that fact; nor is he subject to any disability, no matter what his
race or color. Whatever his race, he had a constitutional right to have
his application considered on its individual merits in a racially
neutral manner.''
We have a chance today to do what is right. But we cannot do right by
doing wrong. We have other means provided in this amendment to help
those who are disadvantaged, but let us today put an end to the use of
race by government, let us never again look at someone and say, ``You
have something that another may not because of the color of your
skin.''
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Tauscher) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, shame on the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell),
my good friend and fellow law professor, for racializing this issue.
Not once, not once did the gentleman allude to anything but race. This
issue does not involve race. This issue involves race and sex. My good
friend and colleague puts a woman's face on an antiwoman amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California would not
yield to me, and I will not yield to the gentleman one moment or one
word.
Mr. Chairman, I warn my colleagues, hundreds of thousands of women's
faces are trained on us now, particularly the faces of women small
business owners. They are taking names and they are counting votes and
they want to know which side my colleagues are on.
Mr. Chairman, I want my colleagues to listen to them. Roberta Verdun,
president, Summit Graphics, North Brunswick, New Jersey:
Without the DBE program, I would not have opportunities to
bid against the big businesses out here.
Deborah Ayars, A-TECH Engineering, Vineland, New Jersey:
Without the DBE provisions of ISTEA, the ever-larger
majority firms would let none of the work out of their firms.
The DBE program is one of the most successful programs the
government has developed.''
Elaine Martin, MarCon, Inc., Nampa, Indiana:
I was low bidder on a job in 1987 where the owner told the
estimator to give the job to a larger, male-owned firm that
had a higher bid than mine. The estimator told the owner that
the job had DBE goals and as low bidder, I should be given
the opportunity to perform. In the 10 years since that one
$100,000 job that I would have lost without the DOT DBE
program, my company has grown from $200,000 to $3 million
annually.''
Finally, Joanna Pierson, Joanna Trucking, Inc., Sioux City, Iowa:
My company is very good at what it does, but that does not
mean anything. What does mean something is that I am a
``foolish female,'' ``stupid woman,'' I'm sure you've heard
them all. To get rid of this program means putting me and
other women like me out of business along with 25 of my
employees.
Mr. Chairman, these are the voices of women small business owners.
This amendment would end the program for socially and economically
disadvantaged white men who also qualify for DBE.
Mr. Chairman, they will not be counting quotas in this bill, because
there are none, but votes to see which side my colleagues were on when
this amendment came up for vote.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
only to say I am sorry the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton) totally misunderstands my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Ms. Dunn).
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address a very tough issue
for women, with friends on both sides of this amendment.
I know as a woman that special and very difficult challenges confront
businesswomen trying to launch enterprises in fields that have
traditionally been male-dominated. That is a fact of life for
businesswomen, despite that fact women continue today to form
businesses at twice the rate of men.
Mr. Chairman, I also know there are serious constitutional questions
involved whenever the government tries to guarantee outcomes, because
that government action usually amounts to a quota and consequent legal
challenges.
The truth is, Mr. Chairman, that when women are given an equal
playing field we have proven that we can succeed. Women now employ more
individuals than all the Fortune 500 companies in the world combined,
and we want to be able to say we have achieved those successes because
of our brains, not our gender.
Quotas have the perverse effect of undermining the credibility of
minority businesses because people believe that they got that contract
on some basis other than merit. For women, that would set our movement
back.
The Roukema amendment clearly states that it is the policy of the
United States to recruit qualified women and minorities into the
applicant pool for transportation contracts. This approach will move us
beyond divisive government-sanctioned preferences and discrimination to
a system of equality under the law, while continuing the original
intent of affirmative action to reach out to those who are
disadvantaged.
Mr. Chairman, my bottom line is this: I want my party and this
Congress to embrace public policy that lets women know they are
welcome, even encouraged, to enter and compete for business. My party
and this Congress should be about expanding opportunities for women.
Toward that end, I believe the gentlewoman from New Jersey has struck
the proper balanced approach that is pro-woman, pro-minority
opportunity, pro-affirmative action.
Nobody in this body can question the long and positive record of the
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) on women's rights and
opportunities. I urge my colleagues to support her balanced approach to
affirmative action in the Roukema amendment.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Poshard).
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Roukema
amendment and strongly urge my colleagues to vote against it. The
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) seeks to discontinue the
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises program, which has the goal of
providing at least 10 percent of transportation contracts to small
businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals.
For almost 20 years, the DBE program has enjoyed great success and
provided critical opportunities for qualified women and people of color
to compete for and perform Federal construction contracts. This is a
good program and it deserves our continued support.
Mr. Chairman, although I dearly wish that it were not the case, the
fact is that women and minority-owned firms remain underrepresented in
the field of construction. The DBE program has been instrumental in
increasing the percentage of contracts awarded to these firms which are
participating more than ever in the construction and maintenance of our
Nation's highways. Now is not the time to dismantle the successful
program which has helped so many and can continue to help even more.
The DBE program does not impose quotas or set-asides but relies
instead on flexible targets and allows States and local governments to
set their own goals based upon the particular circumstances of their
local markets. Ending this program would create turmoil in the firms
which have relied upon it, resulting in failing businesses and
thousands of jobs lost.
[[Page H2004]]
Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will recognize the critical role
that the DBE program can continue to play in the promotion of equal
opportunities for all business owners and join me in opposing the
Roukema amendment.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema). I
congratulate her for bringing to the floor such a useful way to improve
ISTEA, our transportation bill, so that it promotes affirmative action
and so that it outlaws discrimination.
First, let us focus on what this amendment really does. It would
declare the policy of the Federal Government in favor of affirmative
action. That means encouraging bidding by minority-owned and women-
owned businesses, expanding the applicant pool, recruiting qualified
women and minorities into the applicant pool, and encouraging
contractors to do the same. That is what affirmative action is all
about.
In 1964, in the other body, the Democratic floor manager of the 1964
Civil Rights Act, Hubert Humphrey, told a critic of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act, a critic of affirmative action, ``If you can find anything
in this legislation that would require people to hire on the basis of
percentages or quotas, I will start eating the pages one after
another.'' He knew that quotas are the enemy of affirmative action.
Mr. Chairman, I heard a Member in defense of this discrimination
provision say that it is a voluntary program, but the law says, as it
is proposed to be passed on the floor, 10 percent. That is a quota. It
has nothing to do with disadvantaged people. The definition of
``disadvantaged'' in the bill says if a company has sales of $16
million, year after year after year, they are disadvantaged. As the
Federal court said when it struck down a provision just like this as
unconstitutional, under this standard the Sultan of Brunei could
qualify.
Mr. Chairman, let us not cheat those who are really disadvantaged.
Let us do something for them with affirmative action. Let us get rid of
discrimination and let us make it illegal. Let us vote for the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, there is an unfortunate pattern that has
developed here. We have had almost an impossible scenario of trying to
get colleagues on this side of the aisle to support the minimum wage
bill. Just a few minutes ago, my colleagues on this side of the aisle
stood up to oppose an amendment that would help facilitate the
transportation of people on welfare so they could get to work and reach
for their dreams. And now we have an amendment that would destroy a
program that has helped create $1.4 billion worth of the economy,
putting 62,000 people to work.
This program that we are talking about is based on a simple premise
of equal opportunity. It requires all contractors bidding for Federal
highway projects to do so on an equal footing, regardless of gender or
of race. It also establishes a goal, a goal that says 10 percent of
Federal highway projects should be awarded to companies owned by
individuals who for decades, for decades were effectively shut out from
this industry.
Mr. Chairman, this 10 percent goal is not mandatory. It is not a set-
aside. It is not a quota. It is a goal. It is a worthy goal. It is a
goal encouraging all Americans to work hard and to pursue their dreams.
This is a success story. This side of the aisle talks about appealing
to women. They have to address that problem because they do not get
very many votes from women in this country. Well, just as the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) said, this is a
key vote and the American people and women in this country will be
watching to see who stands with them when it comes to getting a fair
share of the pie.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) has 20
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema)
has 10 minutes remaining.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, we set goals in many of our initiatives,
whether it be Goals 2000 or in the Clean Water Act. Goals do not
guarantee giveaways, they generate participation.
The DBE's goal is to provide opportunity to all Americans. Let us
talk about what the DBE is and is not. It is not a quota. It is not a
set-aside. It is not a guarantee of contracts or dollars. And if it
was, I would not support it. What it is is an opportunity for all
Americans to participate in building the Nation's infrastructure and
future.
The Roukema amendment would, in fact, eliminate opportunity for all
Americans to be part of a program they pay for. It would eliminate
talented and competent women, African-Americans and Hispanic Americans
from simply having an opportunity to compete, to compete in the bidding
process.
{time} 1745
But the Roukema amendment not only denies opportunity to all
Americans, it actually promotes the interests of the privileged few.
This is not the Roukema amendment, it is the general contractors'
amendment. The contractors and others are willing to accept the votes
of women, Hispanic Americans and African Americans in this Congress to
pass this bill, but want to lock us out of the benefits. If this
Congress cannot accept the simple goal of equality of opportunity for
all Americans, what a sad day it will be.
When my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about
privilege, they are referring to the privilege that has been enjoyed by
the majority for a long period of time with very few benefits to anyone
in the minority. Let us promote participation, not prohibit it, by
defeating this amendment.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
the time.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The Department of
Transportation DBE program has provided over 20,000 firms with
contracts worth over $2 billion in 1996 alone. As a result, tens of
thousands of jobs have been created, providing economic development in
cities, rural areas and in communities desperately in need of hope and
opportunity. This important program has provided opportunity for women
and minorities working in nontraditional fields like construction and
deserves our support.
As the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, I can tell
my colleagues that this program is effective, valuable, and most
importantly, it is fair. I must remind my colleagues that this is not a
quota program; it is not a set-aside. It is an economic development
program that is goal-based and focused on outcomes. It uses competitive
bidding that includes white males, minorities and women business owners
competing for transportation contracts. This program enjoys bipartisan
support in this body, including the chairman of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the subcommittee of jurisdiction.
Recently the other body overwhelmingly rejected a similar amendment
to destroy this valuable and necessary program. This amendment
threatens to undermine a bill that will help us meet the goal of
rebuilding this Nation's infrastructure and providing for our
transportation needs.
Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues engage in rhetoric about
empowerment and opportunity. Well, this program is all about
opportunity and empowerment. By providing opportunity in the
transportation bidding process, small local firms are creating jobs,
teaching skills and reaching the tax base and helping communities
literally rebuild themselves.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roukema
amendment. It is time to stop dividing our country along race and
gender lines.
[[Page H2005]]
Initiatives like the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program harm
our society, both by lowering standards and by leaving the
beneficiaries of the program in doubt of their own ability. The DBE
program reinforces negative stereotypes because it is based on the
implicit assumption that members of certain groups cannot measure up to
an objective standard and must be given special treatment in order to
succeed.
Some contend that there are really no quotas or set-asides in Federal
law. Well, I encourage anyone who believes that to read the bill. The
language is an explicit 10 percent set-aside. The Roukema amendment
eliminates the set-aside, but it does not prohibit the Federal
Government from making affirmative efforts targeted at minorities and
women to increase the size of the applicant pool for transportation
contracts.
The Department of Transportation can still educate and mentor these
firms in their effort to learn how to compete for contracts. In the
end, though, all candidates must be judged by the same standard and
requirements.
We all strongly support equal opportunity. We should create a level
playing field, but we should never guarantee the final score.
I encourage my colleagues to prohibit discrimination and preferential
treatment when awarding transportation contracts by supporting the
Roukema amendment.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to an amendment to eliminate the
Department of Transportation's Disadvantage Business Enterprise
program. The DBE program ensures that small business concerns which are
owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals will have a fair opportunity to compete for federally-
funded highway and transit contracts.
Much has happened since the Department's first efforts to bring
fundamental fairness to contracting with federal transportation
construction dollars. Minority and women owned small and disadvantaged
business participation in federally assisted highway construction
contracting stood at a mere 1.9 percent in 1978 and rose to 14.8
percent in 1996.
In 1985 on the 4th day of this very month my Mayor Harold Washington,
the Mayor of the great city of Chicago ordered city agencies to award
30 percent of their contracts to companies owned by minority group
members and women. He had to threaten to impose financial penalties on
contractors who try to avoid this minority goal. He suffered death
threats and humiliation from the media from his actions. However
because of his actions minority businesses were able to break an
inefficient, archaic system that favored a handful of contractors and
prevented minorities and women from obtaining city business.
There is good reason for concern that without a federal program in
place, minority participation will decline substantially. When DBE
programs end, many prime contractors return to the same exclusionary
practices that denied minorities and women the chance to compete for
business before the DBE program was created and will completely destroy
what Mayor Harold Washington and the city of Chicago worked for. Why
must we continue to allow certain members of this Congress to hinder a
person's efforts to overcome poverty and adversity and other such
obstacles to achieving excellence.
Mr. Chairman, I am told truth is proper and beautiful in all times
and in all places. Well now is the time, and the place. Let us be
truthful to the all American business people and give them the right
and responsibility to access the roads to prosperity. Vote no to the
Roukema amendment.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise with my colleagues and friends to
oppose this amendment. This amendment is anti-small business. When I
chaired the Michigan Small Business Committee in the House, we heard
over and over again the concerns of small businesses about coming
particularly into the field of transportation and competing with the
large firms. The majority of small businesses today are being opened by
women and minority firms. This gives the opportunity not for a
guarantee, not for a quota, but for the opportunity to get started in a
multibillion-dollar business.
This is a transportation package that will provide jobs and billions
of dollars in contracts. What we are asking, what the committee
reported out was the opportunity to make sure that small and
disadvantaged businesses have the opportunity to get started in this
business. We are talking about those who do not have a long track
record and relationships over years and years being able to be given a
chance as a small business to get that first contract so then they can
go on to get the second and the third and get bigger and bigger.
I urge a no vote on this amendment. It is anti-small business.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter of a
small businessman in New Jersey, who indicates the discrimination he
endured and was denied equal opportunity.
I also include for the Record the letter of Ward Connerly of the
American Civil Rights Coalition in support of my amendment.
GEOD Corporation,
Newfoundland, NJ, April 1, 1998.
Hon. Marge Roukema,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Roukema: I urge you to please support
congresswoman Roukema's amendment H.R. 2400, the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). This amendment
will end the racially divisive policy of imposing race
preference quotas on every transportation related public
works project. These race/gender preference programs have had
a devastating negative impact on my small business. I am the
owner of a 35 person land surveying firm located in New
Jersey. My firm has been repeatedly denied opportunities to
bid or submit my company's qualifications on public works
projects due to my white male ownership status. Time and time
again my prospective clients have said ``sorry John we know
your company does good work but we have to meet the required
quota percentage's in order to be selected, all our
subcontractors have to be MBE, WBE or DBE firms''.
Through the Freedom of Information Act, I obtained lists of
executed contracts by both New York and New Jersey
Department's of Transportation for the last 3 years: 95, 96 &
97. Incredibly more than 80% of subconsultants on all
contracts were D/M/WBE firms. In my industry--Land Surveying,
95% of the survey firms used as subconsultants were D/M/
WBE's. My firm has been denied an equal opportunity to
provide our services on public works projects due to
Affirmative Action's race and gender preference programs.
I urge you to please support Congresswoman Roukema's
amendment H.R. 2400.
Sincerely,
John F. Emilius, President.
____
American Civil Rights Coalition,
Sacramento, CA, March 30, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Gingrich: Tomorrow the House Rules Committee
will decide to whether or not to make in order an amendment
from Representative Marge Roukema to the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) bill to eliminate
provisions inserted by the Senate that contain racial
preferences and set asides. I would ask that you do
everything in your power to ensure that this amendment is
made in order.
As you noted on ABC's ``This Week'' last September we
should have competitive bidding in federal contracts, not
quotas or set asides. The Supreme Court agreed in the Adarand
decision, ruling that programs granting racial preferences
and set asides are unconstitutional unless they can meet a
specific and compelling state interest. Aside from being
ineffective, using discriminatory federal policies as a
method of redressing past discrimination is
counterproductive. Discrimination is wrong, no matter where
it occurs. As public servants, we have an obligation to
protect people's civil rights, whether it is through your
authority as House Speaker or mine as a university regent.
What some people in our nation have forgotten is that civil
rights are individual rights. As you know, our constitution
guarantees the rights of individuals, not groups. When
government confers benefits on groups of people on the basis
of race, ethnicity or gender, it injects a bit of poison into
the body politic.
Please let me know if I or the American Civil Rights
Coalition can be of any help to you as you consider action on
this important issue.
Sincerely,
Ward Connerly, Chairman.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California
for yielding me the time.
[[Page H2006]]
Inherently unfair? I have heard that said several times today. I
thought I would not have too many surprises when I came here, but today
I have been surprised. Equal pay for equal work, have my colleagues
ever heard that question raised? I, too, chaired, in our Senate the
Committee on Small Business for a number of years. I can tell my
colleagues, there is some inequities out there. If they do not believe
that, come and see me after we have got through here. I have got some
swampland for sale.
I do not understand why we have to debate this issue and try to not
be seemingly aware that there is some inequities. Why would we want to
do this? It is permissive. It is a goal. We have the opportunity to do
what is right. I hope that we will defeat this amendment.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), ranking member of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, we know exactly what will happen if this
amendment is passed. Similar legislation was passed before and the
result is always the same. Opportunities for minorities and women will
disappear. For example, in Michigan, when they eliminated their
program, minority businesses were totally shut out of billions of
dollars of State contracting dollars.
Mr. Chairman, we do not live in a color-blind world. According to a
study by the Department of Transportation, a white-owned construction
firm will likely receive 50 times more bonding authority than an
identically situated black-owned firm.
In addition, we know that minorities and women are discriminated
against in access to capital and are still excluded from many business
opportunities and social circles where many important business
decisions take place. That is why white males who represent one-third
of the population already get over 90 percent of the contracts.
This amendment does nothing to deal with that vile discrimination. We
can dress up this amendment by describing it in glowing rhetorical
terms, but we know what it will do. It will devastate the future
opportunities for minorities and women. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask
for a no vote on this amendment.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Lampson).
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I adamantly oppose the Roukema amendment
to strike provisions of BESTEA that continue the Transportation
Department's Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Program. I represent
the part of Houston which is currently embroiled in a lawsuit regarding
this exact program. In fact, the citizens of Houston overwhelmingly
supported a referendum to continue the DBE program as recently as this
spring. Houston is not in a vacuum. This is an issue that has captured
the attention of cities nationwide. The DBE program is fair and it is
constitutional. It does not include any set-asides or any quotas.
Rather, it is a goal-setting economic development program. It uses a
competitive bidding process, which includes qualified minority and
women-owned businesses vying for transportation dollars. There is a
need for the DBE program. Minority and women owned businesses are still
underrepresented in the construction industry.
The Senate recognized the validity of the program when it defeated
Senator McConnell's efforts to eliminate the program. The Roukema
amendment will have a devastating effect on the opportunities for DBEs
to participate in federally funded highway and transit projects. I urge
my colleagues to oppose the Roukema amendment to eliminate the DBE
included in BESTEA.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have heard the debate
on the House floor and I hear a lot of talk about free enterprise and
free markets. I would like to point out that it was President Ronald
Reagan that signed this bill into law. The fact of the matter is that
if we look at the system we have in place today, what we have in place
is very simple. We have socialism for white contractors and free
enterprise for everybody else.
Let us look at the whole idea of what goes behind this. If we have
got some idea that we want to have a poor black entrepreneur in Boston
or California or, yes, New Jersey bid on one of these contracts, if we
want a woman to feel that she can compete, how are they going to do it?
We have an entire tax system that allows you to depreciate all of your
equipment as a contractor.
You cannot walk in and start a new construction company and be able
to bid on any of these Federal contracts and be able to effectively
compete. If you start up with all the capital requirements that are
necessary to bid on these big jobs, there is no way that unless you are
already in the club you can get in the club.
So what we do is we pretend, by a lot of rhetoric, that if we take a
program that has no quotas, that has no timetables, that just says that
if there is a qualified minority or a qualified woman that wants to bid
on a contract, we ought to provide her or him or that individual with a
competitive environment in order to get it. It has not lessened the
quality of the workmanship of our highway program throughout the
Nation. In fact, it has strengthened it.
What we are doing, make no mistake about it, is we are saying this is
for white boys only. That is all this amendment is about. It is trying
to say, we are going to put up a wall between women and minorities and
the work and the taxes that they pay in order to be able to build our
highway system.
Let us be honest with the system we have got. Let us encourage
minorities and our women to go out and get competitive, get business
contracts, start their own companies and employ the people of our
country.
{time} 1800
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Canady).
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
We are hearing a lot of things today about what is happening and what
is not happening. One of the things that is important for us to
understand is what affirmative action originally meant. If we go back
to what President Kennedy said when he issued the original affirmative
action executive order, it involved this provision. It said, ``The
contractor will take affirmative action to assure that applicants are
employed and that employees are treated during employment without
regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.''
Without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. That
is the principle of nondiscrimination. That is the principle of
affirmative action as it was originally embodied in the policy of this
land, and that is the policy of this amendment.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding to me.
The Roukema amendment turns back the clock and destroys the very
viable constitutional DBE program. I rise in vigorous opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I am rising today to speak against the Roukema
Amendment that would abolish the Department of Transportation's
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. For almost two decades, the
DOT's DBE Program has been providing equal opportunities for women and
minorities competing for highway and transit contracts. By reaching out
to women and minority-owned firms and fostering business relationships,
the program has countered the effects of discrimination and good old
boy networks which have been road blocks for many legitimately
competitive minority-owned businesses.
The fact remains that as a result of continued discrimination, women
and minority-owned firms remain underrepresented in the construction
field, even today. Now is not the time to discontinue DOT's equal
opportunity program. It is still an essential tool in paving the road
to equal opportunity for many ``so-called'' disadvantaged businesses.
This program does not impose quotas or set-asides of any kind on those
seeking to receive a government contract, it merely gives the
government a reachable goal to achieve and a standard to measure in
regards to women and minority participation in our vast federal
economic apparatus.
[[Page H2007]]
Furthermore, the Adarand decision has put forth a clear groundwork of
which affirmative action programmatic agendas genuinely produce
diversity without unfairly harming others and which do not. The law is
clear, affirmative action is neither illegal nor inappropriate. It is
frankly a necessary means in trying to achieve true multi-cultural and
multi-gender diversity amongst those people this government chooses to
do business with. The DBE program is about creating points of access
and opportunity for those groups who would otherwise not have them. We
have mended affirmative action to meet the needs of our changing world
and its law, but we can not end it. Opportunity is as essential to
success in this world as air is in our lungs; give people a fair chance
to maximize their potential. Vote down the Roukema Amendment. This
amendment is bad for Texas and bad for Houston. This is not reverse
discrimination.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, this highway bill will spend over $200
billion of taxpayers' money. The fact is that well over half of those
taxpayers are women and minorities.
It is only a matter of basic fairness that groups comprising a
majority of American taxpayers should have a realistic chance to
compete for 10 percent of the highway programs paid for by their tax
dollars. It was that very fundamental issue of fairness that caused 58
Democrats and Republicans in the other body to vote ``no'' on this
unfair amendment.
The DBE program is not a quota. I oppose quotas. But what is good for
America and good for our highway program is that when we are spending
billions of American taxpayer dollars we should at least make it a goal
to not exclude women and minorities from these programs. That is the
right thing to do.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard a few Members today talk about reverse
discrimination in the highway business. Well, I have a suggestion for
them: Go across this country and visit highway contractors and come
back to me and tell me if they really think there are too many
Hispanics and African-Americans and women owning and managing highway
contractor firms. And while they are at it, take a look at those States
who had gotten rid of goals and see what has happened. Then they and I
can talk about real discrimination.
Mr. Chairman, I have reservations about this bill, quite frankly. To
all of those supporting this actively, I would suggest that the passage
of this amendment would be seen as an insult by the vast majority of
Hispanics, African-Americans, and women in this House voting, at least
right now, planning on voting for this bill.
If they want to see the wheels fall off this highway bill today,
simply pass this amendment, sit back and watch. This amendment is not
about quotas. It is not about reverse discrimination. It is about
simple fairness. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich).
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I felt compelled to come over here just to
congratulate the gentlewoman for not indulging in threats and for not
being politically correct and for doing the right thing and for having
the guts to stand up and speak her mind. And I congratulate the
gentleman from California for his usual articulate manner with respect
to this issue.
Mr. Chairman, we know what quotas do. And quota language is in the
bill. It is a fact. And the gentleman from Florida talked about the
history of quotas in this country, and facts are dangerous. Facts are
particularly dangerous on this floor. Quotas lead to taxpayers getting
the short run, and we all know it. Low bidders are subject to reverse
discrimination, as the gentlewoman originally stated.
The American people lose in the process, and the American people are
divided again in the process. If there is anything we can least afford
in these days and times is to again divide the American public.
Civil rights should mean and always mean equal rights. That is what
it used to mean before PC came about. I truly congratulate the
gentlewoman from New Jersey, whom I am very proud to serve with on the
Committee on Banking for doing the right thing for all of the American
people.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in opposition to
this amendment. The vote on this amendment is a no-brainer. Even though
today might be April Fools, in 14 days it will be tax time; and on this
day, every single person will contribute their share to the pot.
This pot reminds me of my grandmother's sweet potato pie. We all
contribute to that pot every year. So when it comes time to cut it up,
we should all get a piece. That includes women and minorities. Women
and minorities contribute their share to the Federal Government, so why
should they be excluded from getting part of the goods and services?
The DBE program is simply one tool to make sure that we are on a
level playing field when it comes to competing. Vote ``no'' on this
amendment.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on
each side, please?
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentlewoman from New
Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, and I will have the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) has the
right to close.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for
yielding me the time.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The program under
consideration here is not a perfect program, but we are not a perfect
Union either. One of the ways that we are imperfect is that people have
not had real economic opportunity. They have been shut out. If we leave
this program in place, people will have the chance to be included and
participate.
But perhaps even more importantly than what this program does for
people is we should oppose the amendment for what it says to people. Do
we really believe and are we really prepared to say that enough has
been done, that women and people of color and people that have been
left out of this process have enough now, that we have gone as far as
we can go and have done all that we can do to rectify decades of
discrimination in this country?
I think the answer to that question is ``absolutely not.'' We have a
long way to go. The approval of this amendment would be a step in the
wrong direction. The defeat of this amendment is a step in the right
direction. I urge its defeat.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by my colleague
from New Jersey, which would end the Transportation Department's
efforts to give disadvantaged businesses the opportunity to bid for
transportation contracts.
The current law promotes economic growth and advances social justice
through the Disadvantaged Business program, by giving disadvantaged
businesses the chance to compete for up to 10% of federal
transportation spending, which would be as much as $20 billion over the
next five years. Many small businesses have been unable to participate
in federal transportation contracting in the past, including companies
owned by minorities, women, people with disabilities, and others. These
companies deserve a chance to get started in the process, to get their
first contract, and to begin growing and hiring more workers. This is
the best way to create jobs and promote justice.
The Roukema Amendment would undercut the goals of growing the economy
and ensuring justice. This proposal would cut out many of these
disadvantaged businesses that deserve a chance to get their foot in the
door. The Roukema Amendemnt embraces the rhetoric of affirmative
action, but it would abolish the current practice of affirmatively
reaching out to help disadvantaged businesses get a fair start.
This amendment eliminates a law which guarantees that the government
works to include people who have been excluded from a program which
builds our economy and builds small businesses. This disadvantaged
business law is the only approach that works. It works to build the
best roads in the world, and it works to give minorities, women, people
with disabilities, and other disadvantaged Americans a chance to
compete for contracts. When
[[Page H2008]]
they win these bids, these companies create jobs for disadvantaged
citizens across our country, at the same time they are helping to build
the highest-quality highways for our people. It is a grave mistake to
think that we can do without it.
For these reasons, I strongly oppose the Roukema Amendment and urge
my colleague to vote against it.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from
California for yielding to me.
A distinguished Member of this House once wrote that ``In politics we
have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent
interests.'' It gives me no great pleasure to rise in opposition to one
of my Women Caucus colleagues, but I do have permanent interests, and
that is the economically disadvantaged.
As the co-chair of the Women-owned Business of the Women's Caucus, I
held a hearing the top of the year because women were complaining that,
though we have mandated about 5 percent of the procurement contracts,
they have only gotten 1.8 percent of the contracts.
This is what DBE is all about. It allows women and others,
irrespective of their race, the opportunity to apply for contracts if
they qualify. The DBE program is not a set-aside, it is not quotas, it
is simply giving them an opportunity to qualify for contracts for those
who are economically disadvantaged.
The disadvantaged business enterprise provisions of BESTEA are sound
and were passed out by the full committee with bipartisan support. I
join the Senate in saying ``no'' on the Roukema amendment and ``yes''
for moving an agenda for women-owned businesses.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our colleague,
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New
Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) for bringing this amendment to the floor, and I
wholeheartedly support it.
Let us be very clear. The Supreme Court has stated that the current
set-aside program is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th
amendment guarantee that all Americans will be treated equally
regardless of race, color, or gender. By setting aside a certain number
of contracts to be allocated on those bases, current law flies in the
face of our constitutional mandate that all Americans be treated equal
under the law.
Now, President Clinton has suggested that we need to mend, not end,
affirmative action to bring it in compliance with the Supreme Court
rulings and to bring it in compliance with our notion that has been
since the founding of our country that every person is of equal
dignity.
I think the Roukema amendment does exactly that. It removes the
unconstitutional provision that sets up a quota and says that certain
contracts will not be awarded based on merit, based on free
competition, not based on what color your skin is or whether you are a
woman, not a man. That is wrong and needs to be removed from law.
What her amendment does, which is absolutely necessary, is puts into
place an effective affirmative action program that says we are going to
reach out to disadvantaged contractors, reach out to minorities, reach
out to women and make available to them every opportunity to compete on
a free and equal basis.
I heartily encourage my fellow colleagues to vote for the Roukema
amendment.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, we have to recognize that there is still
disparity out there. And if we do not recognize it, we do not see it.
For them to stand up there and talk in terms of being in favor of
affirmative action, in favor of trying to do the right thing reminds me
of the slave owner who basically said, you are better off in slavery
because we will be able to take care of you. It is appalling in terms
of the comments that I hear when I stand up here before my colleagues.
It is not a quota. We need to recognize the fact that there is
preferential treatment that is occurring out there and that is
discrimination that is happening, and we need to see how we can best
respond to that. And this program is one of the programs that has been
proven to make sure that the individuals have an opportunity to be able
to participate.
My colleagues cannot tell me that women are having a fair deal out
there, because they are not; and for my colleagues to stand up there to
say that they are is contrary to what is actually happening. It is
contrary to what the statistics will show and tell us. I would ask that
my colleagues consider what has been done too.
To say that it is contrary to the Supreme Court decision, I would ask
my colleagues to also consider the Adarand decision, because this
particular decision does not deal with this particular item, and it is
a safe item, and we should continue to support it.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am afraid the gentleman from Texas is the only one that I know of
who interprets the Adarand decision that way.
Mr. Chairman, what is the balance of my time?
The CHAIRMAN. Each side has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Tauscher) has the right to close.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would simply say that I think our colleagues have been listening to
this debate, but in no way are we denying affirmative action. We are
really mending it and bringing it up to date because it has resulted in
unintended consequences. And my amendment carefully protects outreach,
as well as the civil rights and anti-discrimination elements of
affirmative action and literally goes back to our original intention.
As we know now, the courts are clearly coming to terms with this. And
if we do not act upon it, the courts certainly will.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Meek).
(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing the fundamental
ignorance that goes behind this amendment and particularly to people
who have responded in debate tonight.
First of all, it is very obvious that they do not know that there are
no quotas in this bill. There are no quotas in this bill. They feel
that there are. They feel that there are some set-asides. There are no
set-asides in this bill, only goals. They do not understand, obviously,
that this bill is not all for minorities and women. It is for
disadvantaged. Anyone can be disadvantaged. Even some white males have
been disadvantaged.
So this is a spurious argument that they are using here today. It is
not even based on fact. If they are trying to bring to the floor a bill
which one of our colleagues from Florida has been trying to tack onto
everything that has come through this House, then do it. But this is no
way to do it. They are doing it on a bill that is going to benefit a
lot of people in this particular body.
So if that is what they are doing to try to kill the transportation
bill, then kill it. But kill it in such a way that is noble and
noteworthy and not cloaked behind something that is not true.
I say to each of my colleagues to vote against this bill. This is a
terrible bill, and they know it. They have got one of their moderates
to present it, but it is presented under the wrong title.
{time} 1815
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio).
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, despite an overwhelming
bipartisan defeat in the Senate, unfortunately we have before us
another attempt to gut a program that gives women and minorities the
chance to compete for Federal highway dollars.
The Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program works. It puts women
and minorities to work. It gives them the chance to compete in an
industry that has traditionally shut them out.
[[Page H2009]]
It is not a quota. It is not a set-aside. If it were, do we really
think that Ronald Reagan's administration would have created this
program? I think a not.
The highway bill offers so much to so many. It is wrong to turn back
the clock on women and minority-owned businesses. Let us not put a
tollgate on the road to opportunity for these aspiring entrepreneurs.
We can further refine this program. As the President has said, mend
it, do not end it. But this amendment goes too far. I urge a ``no''
vote and, frankly, a return to the kind of bipartisan spirit that has
allowed us to begin to make some progress against the legacy of
discrimination. This program should be reaffirmed and not eliminated.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to set the record straight.
Nobody sought me out as a moderate, dirty word, moderate to do this
amendment. I have been advocating this procedure for more than a year.
In addition, the Senate proposal was not this proposal at all, the one
that was defeated. It was a far more complicated one. It created a
whole new program. It was not my amendment that was defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Speaker Gingrich.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia, the Speaker of the House,
is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I hope that everybody who is listening
carefully to this debate has listened to our good friends over here,
because they are now caught in an inherent contradiction. They say to
us they are against quotas. Member after Member got up and said, ``I am
against quotas.'' They say to us there is nothing in this program that
is a quota. They say to us, ``We are against the government
discriminating.'' They say there is nothing in this program that
requires the government to discriminate.
I want to thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), for
having the courage to stand up here and to offer a very, very important
amendment. Notice what it says. It says it is for affirmative action.
Affirmative action: ``to expand the applicant pool for transportation
contracts in order to increase competition; to encourage participation
by businesses owned by women and minorities in bidding for
transportation contracts.''
Affirmative action: ``to recruit qualified women and minorities into
the applicant pool for transportation contracts.'' And it goes on to
say, an affirmative action ``to encourage transportation contractors to
request businesses owned by women and minorities to bid for
transportation contracts'' and affirmative action ``to include
qualified women and minorities into an applicant pool for
transportation contracts.'' Everything we are told our friends over
here believe in.
But here is what it then goes on to say. It then says, but it cannot
involve granting a preference. This is the nub of this thing. Should an
American citizen be discriminated against? Should an American citizen
be discriminated for by their own government? Should the Government of
the United States say to you, well, you were the lowest competitive
bidder, but you did not fit the preference this week.
Let me point out, in California, when this broke down, when Senator
Campbell at that time first got involved in this fight, it was because
it was Asian women who were being discriminated against at law school
and could not get in because the quota was filled. And it was Asian
women who were being discriminated against, not white males, not the
old boy network. They frankly were not studying enough. But Asian
women.
So let us go ahead. What does the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs.
Roukema) do? She says it is a ``prohibition against discrimination or
preferential treatment.'' We have been told by our friends over here
they do not have any preferential treatment. There is no quota.
All right. What would the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema)
do? She says no governmental entity, the very government of our own
country, no governmental entity shall, in connection with a
transportation contract, in other words, in giving out the money of the
American people, the Government of the United States shall not, one,
``intentionally discriminate against, or grant a preference to, any
person or group based in whole or in part on race, color, national
origin, or sex,'' which by the way is what Hubert Humphrey said in 1964
was the essence of the Civil Rights Act.
So what does this say? We are not going to ask you to tell us that
you are black. We are not going to ask you to tell us you are white. We
are not going to ask you to tell us that you are Asian. We are not
going to ask you to tell us you are Hispanic.
We are going to ask you to tell us what will you charge for this
contract. And the lowest competitive bidder should get the contract.
Why should the lowest competitive bidder be told, well, you know, you
would build the best highway, you would do the best job for the
taxpayer. You went to school and you learned how to do it and you
worked hard and you founded your own little company, and, you know, you
would have gotten the contract, but this week you do not fit.
Oh, it is not a quota anymore. I am not sure what you all would call
it. A preference, a ripe banana, a kumquat. I mean, what is this year's
code word? What is the newest phrase? Because you cannot defend quotas.
You know you cannot get up here and say, yep, I want to make sure my
political friends that give to my campaign get a quota. Yep, I want to
make sure that my friends get their contract, even if they are not the
lowest bidder. Yep, in fact they could be the highest bidder, but if
they fit the right quota; you cannot say that anymore.
So my colleagues come down here and misdescribe what she does. What
she does is very straightforward. It is right here, and my colleagues
cannot refute it. She says the Government of the United States will not
discriminate.
When I was an Army brat growing up from Pennsylvania to Kansas to
France to Germany, and I arrived in Georgia in 1960, we had government-
imposed segregation. It was totally wrong. I have lived in an
integrated system called the United States Army, and I go into an
integrated system called military dependent schools.
But to set up a new system of discrimination, to set up a new
approach by which the Government of the United States cheats the people
of this country, no longer gives away the contract to the lowest
competitive bidder, but picks out a political winner.
So we say to our children, do not go and study engineering, study how
to fill out the application. Do not go and study business, fill out how
to make sure you are in the right quota.
We saw it happen in San Francisco when people began to apply as
firemen and had new ancestors who happened to fit the quotas.
So I want to commend the gentlewoman from New Jersey. This is the
right step. It is very simple. The Government of the United States
should not discriminate against any American. The taxpayers of the
United States should expect that the lowest competitive bidder will get
the grant.
I urge a ``yes'' vote for the Roukema amendment.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter from the President
of the United States sent by fax this morning from Dakar where he says,
The DBE program is not a quota. The existing statute
explicitly provides the Secretary of Transportation may waive
the 10 percent goal for any reason and that this benchmark is
not to be imposed on any State or locality.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member of the
committee.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, when all else fails, read the language of
the legislation. The inherent contradiction that our esteemed Speaker
talked about is in the amendment itself, not in the arguments on this
side. The inherent contradiction is that the amendment goes on for line
after line talking about all the good things it wants to do. Then in
the end it defines preference in the last four lines as an advantage of
any kind, a quota, set-aside, numerical goal, timetable, other
numerical objective. Does it also mean outreach? They want to protect
outreach? They do not do that in this legislation.
[[Page H2010]]
The DBE program has worked wonderfully for the 6 years of ISTEA. The
10 percent goal is a national target. State and local recipients of DOT
funds set their own goals for DOT participation and construction
projects based on the availability of disadvantaged businesses in their
markets. There is no absolute requirement that a particular goal be
met.
In fact, it is very acceptable business practice to set goals. Goals
are a standard tool of good management worldwide. But by prohibiting
goals, the amendment prevents States and localities from measuring
progress against discrimination. That is what this is all about,
progress against discrimination.
I have heard all sorts of conversation today from the advocates of
this amendment about freedom, freedom to choose, freedom to move,
mobility. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, rich and poor alike have the
freedom to leap under a bridge. Only the poor wind up under the bridge.
Do not stuff people under a bridge with this amendment. Let us defeat
this amendment. Let us stand up for what is good in America and give
poor, minorities, women, an opportunity to bid on this great highway
program, this $270 billion program of ours that moves America forward
into the next century.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
BESTEA is a terrific bill. I salute Chairman Shuster and his
committee for the many hours of hard work they put in on this bill over
the last year.
I thank the committee for including a very important provision which
will exempt from federal DBE requirements any transit authorities that
are under court order preventing them from complying with these
requirements.
This is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't quite go far
enough.
It is time to completely put an end to discrimination in the awarding
of transportation contracts.
Mr. Chairman, race-based discrimination is wrong. And gender-based
discrimination is wrong. And it is wrong regardless of whether the
victim is male, female, black, or white.
The DBE program is a federally-mandated quota program that commands
highway and transit contractors to discriminate based on race and
gender.
A federal court in Texas recognized that this kind of discrimination
is wrong when it ordered the city of Houston's metro transit authority
to cease awarding contracts based on race and gender.
Houston METRO complied with this court order, and as a result, it
went 18 months without its share of federal funding.
The BESTEA bill prevents this kind of thing from happening again. It
guarantees that transit agencies will not lose their funding when a
court orders them not to discriminate. That's great. I support that.
If we pass this amendment, we will take an even bigger step in
rooting out discrimination. Getting rid of the DBE program will ensure
that agencies continue to receive funding if they refuse to
discriminate--even without a court order.
I urge my colleagues to stomp out government-enforced discrimination.
I urge them to vote yes on this amendment.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Roukema
Amendment to the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity
Act to eliminate the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. I
strongly support the DBE Program which was first signed into law by
President Reagan in 1983. The goal of the DBE Program is to eradicate
the lingering effects of discrimination in the construction industry,
and provide equal opportunities for minority and women-owned business
to compete for federal highway and construction contracts.
Although the playing field is still far from level, we have made
progress since the inception of the DBE Program. The percentage of
women and minority-owned firms participating in the construction of
America's highways has increased. By reaching out to minority and
women-owned firms and forging business relationships, this program has
been successful in countering the effects of ``good old boys'' network.
Despite the success of the DBE program, non-DBE firms still get over
85% of federal highway and construction contracts. If we eliminate this
program now, we will reverse modest gains for women and minorities in
the construction industry.
Make no mistake, when Members say that they want to eliminate this
program in order to ensure fair competition for all firms, including
those owned by minorities and women, they are deliberately misleading
the American people. If they do not believe that discrimination exists
in the construction industry, they are blind. If they do not believe
that majority-owned firms, advantaged by a network good old boys, have
a historical advantage, they are either blind or naive, or both. If
they say that elimination of the DBE Program will not result in a sharp
decline in the percentage of minority and women-owned firms
participating in federal construction projects, they are insincere.
Mr. Chairman, both the Reagan and Bush administrations supported the
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. The President, under the
stewardship of Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater, has urged
Congress to continue its support for the DBE Program. The DBE program
does not impose quotas or set-asides. Instead, it simply sets a
national goal that 10% of highway and transit funds be used for
services rendered by disadvantaged businesses. However, the goals are
flexible. The program allows state and local governments to set their
own goals based on the numbers of disadvantaged businesses in their
markets. And a state can waive the goal if it cannot find a qualified
disadvantaged business.
The DBE program is consistent with President Clinton's ``mend it,
don't end it'' policy on affirmative action, and the Supreme Court's
Adarand decisions which allowed the use of affirmative action programs
by the federal government to meet a ``compelling government interest''
to combat the ``lingering effects of discrimination.''
I urge my colleagues to follow the lead of the House authorizing
Committee, which recommends that this program be continued. I urge you
to follow the Senate's lead, which voted overwhelmingly to retain it.
And finally, I urge my colleagues to follow the lead of the two past
Presidents and our current President, all of whom support this valuable
program. I urge the rejection of this amendment.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Roukema
amendment. How ironic that the GOP--who recently led the effort that
resulted in renaming Washington National Airport to the Ronald Reagan
National Airport--now seeks to eliminate a vital program which
President Reagan himself signed into law. The Department of
Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program is
about providing opportunities--an ideal our Republican colleagues often
champion as one of their goals. It is not about quotas, set asides,
unqualified businesses receiving preferential treatment, nor about
violations of Supreme Court rulings.
The DBE program was created by Section 105 (f) of the Surface
Transportation Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-424) in order to increase the share
of qualified, ``socially and economically disadvantaged'' businesses in
the transportation construction industry. Under the program, state
Departments of Transportation and state and local mass transit agencies
must establish a goal of awarding 10 percent of all funds spent on
federal-aid highway projects to certified firms owned by ``socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals.'' However, if a state agency or
prime contractor is unable to find enough qualified subcontractors to
reach the goals, they are allowed to apply for a waiver to lower the
goal. There are no penalties or sanctions for failure to meet a goal.
The Roukema amendment would gut DOT's ability to address a problem
that still plagues our nation: the paucity of minority and women-owned
firms who receive transportation dollars. For those who naively believe
that American has fully realized her dream of a color-blind society, a
society in which there no longer exists a need to ensure an equitable
playing field in the economic marketplace for disadvantaged persons, I
submit that they are mistaken. Discrimination is alive and well and
manifesting itself through the difficulties minorities and women
continue to face in securing access to contracts and capital.
Consider that minorities make up 20 percent of the population, yet
represent only 9 percent of all construction firms and 5 percent of all
construction receipts. Women own one-third of all firms, but receive
only 19 percent of the business receipts. White-owned construction
firms receive 50 times more loan dollars than black-owned firms with
identical equity.
Without goals, women- and minority-owned businesses have been shut
out of transportation construction projects. In 1989 in Michigan,
within nine months of terminating the state DBE program, no minority
businesses received contracts. Seven years later, in 1996, DBEs still
had received no more than 1.1 percent of state highway contract
dollars.
These disturbing statistics further underscore the reality that
America has yet to reach the honorable state of a truly color-blind
society, and that in order to ensure absolute parity in the contracting
process, we must legislate fairness through programs such as the one
before us today. Think about the following example: since the inclusion
of women in the DBE program in 1987, women have enhanced their
procurement dollars by approximately 175 percent. In FY 1994, the DBE
program generated nearly $87 million in contracting opportunities for
women-owned businesses. These contracting opportunities resulted in the
creation of 62,000 new jobs. When racial/ethnic minority-owned firms
are added, the DBE program in FY 94 generated $3.4 billion and
[[Page H2011]]
resulted in the creation of approximately 146,000 new jobs.
This program does not set aside a specific amount of money for any
one population group, nor does it guarantee that a specific number of
businesses will receive contracts. And let me reiterate: there are no
penalties for not meeting the 10 percent goal. This amendment is
strongly opposed by the Administration, and the Senate recently
defeated a similar amendment by a vote of 58 to 37. I share the view of
Transportation Secretary Rodney E. Slater who has said that ``[r]emoval
of the DBE program from H.R. 2400 would be a serious blow to our
efforts to assure fundamental fairness to the citizens of this
country.'' I urge defeat of this amendment.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, a distinguished Member of this
House once wrote that ``in politics, we have no permanent enemies, just
permanent interests.'' It gives me no great pleasure to rise in
opposition to one of my Women's Caucus colleagues, but I do have
permanent interests--the economically disadvantaged. The Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise provisions of BESTEA are sound and were passed out
of the full Committee with bi-partisan support. The DBE programs in
this bill do not include set asides or quotas. These DBE programs use a
competitive bidding process to include minority and women-owned
businesses.
As Co-Chair of the Women's Caucus Women-Owned Businesses Legislative
Task Force, I held a hearing on the lack of procurement opportunities
for women-owned businesses because women were complaining that they did
not have access to federal contracts.
The Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program is fair, flexible and
complies with the Supreme Court's ``strict scrutiny'' standard. It
serves as the model program for federal agencies aspiring to extend
contracting opportunities for women and minority-owned firms who
receive disproportionately fewer contracts and subcontracts than their
qualifications and ability warrant.
It sets the goal of 10 percent of highway and transit funds be used
for services rendered by disadvantaged businesses. State and local
governments then set their own goals based on the numbers of
disadvantaged businesses in their local markets. And if a prime
contractor cannot find a qualified disadvantaged business, the state
can waive the goal entirely.
Any individual owning a business may demonstrate that she or he is
socially and economically disadvantaged, even if that individual is not
a woman or minority. In fact, businesses owned by white males have
qualified for DBE status.
Since the inclusion of women in the DBE program in 1987 under
President Ronald Reagan, women have enhanced their procurement dollars
by approximately 175 percent. The participation of women and minority-
owned small and disadvantaged businesses in federally assisted highway
construction contracting has grown from a mere 1.9 percent in 1978 to
14.8 percent in 1996.
In fiscal year 1996, 6.7 percent of contracts were awarded to women-
owned businesses under the DBE program, generating $1.4 billion for
women-owned businesses and producing 62,000 new jobs in highway and
transit industries.
Between 1987 and 1996, women-owned businesses in the field of
construction grew by 171 percent. During that same time period,
contracts to women-owned businesses increased from 2.6 percent to 6.7
percent in 1996.
As of 1996, there were more than one million women-owned businesses
in the state of California--that is a 77.7 percent growth since 1987
when Ronald Reagan signed into law the inclusion of women in the DBE
program. In California, women-owned businesses received less than 4
percent of the DBE dollars.
We need the DBE program. White-owned construction firms received 50
times as many loan dollars as black-owned firms with identical equity.
At least 492 firms have grown from subcontractors to prime contractors
after entering the DBE program.
The Senate voted 58 to 37 to defeat an amendment to replace the DBE
program. I urge the House to follow their bipartisan lead and maintain
this fair, effective and constitutional program.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New
Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 405, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on Amendment No. 2
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) which will be taken
immediately after this vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194,
noes 225, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 93]
AYES--194
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--225
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (OR)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
[[Page H2012]]
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Radanovich
NOT VOTING--11
Cannon
Gonzalez
Hutchinson
Jefferson
Klug
LaFalce
Payne
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Waters
{time} 1844
Mr. Martinez and Mr. McDade changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. Dan Schaefer of Colorado, Young of Alaska, Snowbarger and
Whitfield changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
Mr. Radanovich changed his vote from ``no'' to ``present.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 175, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 94]
AYES--242
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Calvert
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Redmond
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Souder
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--175
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King (NY)
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Snowbarger
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Cannon
Gonzalez
Jefferson
Klug
LaFalce
Payne
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Scarborough
Smith (MI)
Spratt
Waters
{time} 1853
Mr. EWING and Mr. FOLEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. ORTIZ changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 4 printed
in part II of House Report 105-476.
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Graham
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Graham:
(a) Highway Project Authorization.--
(1) In section 102(8), strike all after the parenthetical
and insert ``$596,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $816,000,000
for fiscal year 1999, $885,000,000 for fiscal year 2000,
$885,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $885,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002 and $885,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.''
(2) In section 103(b), strike the ``and'' and all that
follows after paragraph (7) and insert ``and'' after
paragraph (6).
(3) Strike sections 127(b) and 127(c) and redesignate
sections of the bill accordingly.
(b) Transit Project Authorizations.--
(1) In section 328(a) in the matter proposed to be inserted
as section 5338(b)(1) of title 49, strike all that follows
after ``to carry out section 5309'' through the end of such
subsection and insert ``(1) $878,000,000 for fiscal year
1998, (2) $964,800,000 for fiscal year 1999, and (3)
$1,045,200,000 for fiscal years 2000 through 2003.''
(2) In section 329(a) strike ``shall not exceed'' through
the end of such subsection and insert ``(1) $800,000,000 for
fiscal year 1998; (2) $856,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
(3) $1,045,200,000 for fiscal year 2000-2003.''
(3) Strike sections 332 and 333 and redesignate sections of
the bill accordingly.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 405, the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
{time} 1900
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in support of this
amendment that would strike out all of the special projects in the
current bill before this committee.
I want to say that I am opposed to the bill itself for three
principal reasons: One, it is bad process; two, it is
[[Page H2013]]
bad precedent; and three, it is a bad product.
Let me speak about bad process first. I would ask the question, is it
right that the campaign committee chairmen are consulted before the
special road projects are given to Members who live or represent
politically sensitive districts where they have tough races coming up
in November?
Is it right to dangle millions of dollars in front of Members for no
specific projects, just a blank check?
Is it right to award the States of Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure Members an average of $253 million, versus $54 million
if there is not a Member on the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure from one's State?
It is bad precedent because this bill exceeds the budget caps put in
place last summer by $26 billion, that is with a capital B, billions of
dollars. What happens when we use the budget caps as a defense when
anybody else wants to raise spending in any other level? Are we going
to say, no, we cannot do that because of the budget caps? We cannot do
it if we pass this bill.
What happens when we begin building deficits as a result of this
fiscal insanity? We will raise taxes. It is bad precedent.
It is a bad product. What do I mean by that? Is it responsible to
increase the total funding for infrastructure by 42 percent, which is
what this bill does? The Balanced Budget Agreement, which we voted on,
again, last summer, calls for a 20 percent increase in infrastructure
funding. How much is enough?
What happens when the Senate does not agree with the offsets? What
are we going to do then?
Do we really think a high-priority project is a transportation museum
in Pennsylvania, an Appalachian Transportation Institute at Marshall
University, or $800,000 for a train station? Are these really high-
priority projects?
The chairman of this committee is a zealous advocate for roads. I
appreciate that and respect him for it. But I believe he has crossed
the center line. The House's own rules say it shall not be in order for
any bill to contain any provision for any specific road.
The rule was never waived until 1982. Then, in 1982, it was waived:
ten special projects, at a cost of $386 million; in 1987, 152 for $1.3
billion; in 1991, 539 projects, for $6.2 billion; this year, 1,450
projects for $9.3 billion.
Support the amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina to strike
these projects.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield 5
of my minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), to control blocks of time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) will
control half the time in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the principle of Members of
Congress being able to recommend to our committee specific projects,
and our committee in turn being able to vet those projects and
determine ones which are worthy.
It is very important to emphasize that only 5 percent of the total
funding in this bill is dedicated to high-priority congressional
projects. That means, and let me be even more specific, 88 percent of
the decisions being made as to where the highways and transit systems
are being built will be made by the States: by governors and by the
legislatures and the departments of transportation. Seven percent of
the money goes downtown, to be made by the Secretary of Transportation.
The decisions to build highways and transit systems are not decisions
made by angels up in heaven. These are decisions made in the political
process. Governors decide where it is best to put highways. State
legislators decide.
There is nothing wrong with Members of Congress, who are the ones
that have to cast the tough votes to create the programs, having some
say. To have a 5 percent say does not seem unreasonable.
In fact, I would point out that if indeed this amendment were to
pass, and $18 billion less were to be available, then we would be
violating the principle of spending gas tax dollars for improvements to
infrastructure. We would be back in the same old game we were in
previously, where the American people were being flim-flammed. They
were paying their gas taxes at the pump, but the money was building up
in the Trust Fund, and this would increase the balance in the Trust
Fund.
Conversely, if we strike the projects but do not strike the money,
then there is no saving. We would be back keeping faith with the people
in terms of saying that the money paid by the gas tax would be
available to be spent, and that is all, only the revenue coming in the
gas tax; honesty in budgeting, that is all. Then we would be saying the
money can be spent, but zero decisions would be made by Members of
Congress, and all of the decisions would be made by those governors and
legislators and the Secretary of Transportation downtown.
I think it is not reasonable to believe that somehow there is a non-
political, pure process back in the State Houses, as compared to the
decisions that are made here. In fact, if a Member of Congress does not
know what is important to his district, then I do not think he is going
to be a Member of Congress very long.
Let me say, I do not agree with some of the projects that have been
submitted. But that is not my decision to make. In fact, I would
respectfully suggest it is a bit arrogant for someone to say that we
know better what is important for Members' congressional districts than
they know.
Indeed, we have a vetting process. The vetting process is a 14-point
vetting process, which includes recommendation by the Secretary of
Transportation in the State, which includes recommendation by the
mayors.
Indeed, what I find so mystifying is my good friend, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), submitted four projects to us. I have
the letter right here from him, saying that the South Carolina Route 72
project is vital and would provide additional traffic capacity
resulting in safe and efficient roadways in three counties, a letter
asking for the project.
And my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), signed
a letter asking for projects. In fact, I do have a letter from the
Governor of Oklahoma received just yesterday saying, ``On behalf of all
Oklahomans, I want to express our appreciation for the successful
committee action on the bill to do so much to restore Federal funding
dollars and to move the vital Interstate 40 crosstown project
forward.''
That is the project which was requested by two members of the
Oklahoma delegation who took this floor or took a press conference last
week to attack our integrity, suggesting that we were offering projects
in exchange for votes. At the time I challenged somebody to come
forward and to name one Member of Congress to whom I said, I will give
you a project in exchange for your vote, or conversely, threatened, you
will not get a project if you do not vote for it. None has come
forward? Why, because it never happened.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, this is also worth pointing out, that this
was an open process, with 4 full days of hearing, 170 Members of
Congress testifying in public, supported by hundreds of local mayors
and officials from across the United States, pointing out the merits of
these particular projects.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, speaking of angels and governors, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in support of the
Graham amendment. I believe that what we have here is a violation of
the Balanced Budget Agreement. I think the committee, by the way, did a
good job on this legislation. They just went too far. They went about
$26 billion too far, and that is money which we do not presently have.
About $18 billion of that can be found in these special demonstration
[[Page H2014]]
projects. I disagree with the Chairman on this. I believe the special
demonstration projects are wrong. I believe they are pork. I believe
these decisions should be made by the States and by the officials who
live in the States, who are qualified to make decisions about where
their highways should go.
How are we going to pay for this? I ask Members to ask themselves
that before they support this legislation. We are going to pay for it
because education is going to suffer, defense is going to suffer,
housing may suffer, the environment may suffer. Maybe we will not
balance the budget. Alan Greenspan will tell us that interest rates
will go up 2 percent if we do not get a balanced budget.
I think these are extraordinarily important issues. I hope before
anybody here votes, whether they have demonstration projects or not,
they will consider the enormity of what we are doing. This has just
gone too far, and it is too bad, because an extraordinary amount of
good work was done here.
However, the bottom line is, all of us should unite to support this
amendment and take this $18 billion off the table.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), a ranking member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and an architect of this
legislation.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, let us get some facts on the table. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) has laid out very well how funds for
highways are apportioned under this bill. Eighty-eight percent would be
distributed to the States by formula through apportionments, by going
to States. Basically, this money goes to governors and State
legislators. Seven percent would stay here in Washington for
administration of the Federal Highway Administration.
Let us get it straight, only 5 percent, the remaining 5 percent of
the highway funds in BESTEA, are for these projects that are deemed to
be high-priority projects by Members of this body. That is the same as
in the current law, ISTEA. The bottom line is that governors and State
legislators get to spend 88 percent of the highway dollars, while House
Members get to direct only 5 percent.
Yet some in the media, and I think perhaps the sponsors of this
amendment, ought to look at these facts, instead of paying attention to
those in the editorial pages in some of the national newspapers or
those in the media who would portray this as pork and something evil.
Let us look at the facts. They ignore the fact that 88 percent of these
dollars are going directly to the State governors and State legislators
for their disbursements.
Are these individuals angels? Let us get real. The last time I
checked, governors were elected like we are elected, politicians. They
have to run for election. I do not know of any governor that has been
appointed from some holier-than-thou source to serve. So these guys are
politicians. Get real.
I would submit that Members of this body, Democrat and Republican
alike, know his or her district better than any State governor who has
to make those decisions on a Statewide basis. If anybody in this body
does not know his or her district better than the governor of their
State, I doubt if they are going to be here very long.
These projects are worthwhile. They have been through a rigorous
vetting process. They have answered a series of 14 tough questions that
we instituted back when we started reauthorizing ISTEA. They have been
part of the transportation plan of every State.
We have reviewed the requests. We have held public hearings. There
has been nothing secretive about the process, there has been nothing
dishonest about the process, there has been nothing corrupt about the
process; some of the words being thrown around here.
So the proof is in the pudding. This legislation has passed the
muster. It has passed the muster with the Surface Transportation Policy
Project, a liberal group comprised of environmentalists, in line with
the Conference of Mayors and League of Cities. The Surface
Transportation Policy Project has endorsed this legislation, and they
have said that these projects are worthwhile.
I would urge rejection of this amendment.
{time} 1515
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds, just to say that
Citizens Against Government Waste and the National Taxpayers Union
support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I
would like for the American public to know what was left on a voice
mail in my office by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:
``Matt, this is Darryl Wilson with the Transportation Committee. I'm
calling about the BESTEA bill, which is the transportation measure that
is moving through the committee. We have a deal for you on the funding
levels for that. I originally spoke to your office last September and
we said there was $10 million in this bill for your boss. Well, we are
upping that by $5 million, so now you have $15 million. I just want to
know where your boss wants to spend that money.''
Mr. Chairman, I want to tell my colleagues that if we apply this
logic that we get to dole out 5 percent of the transportation funds,
then we should apply the same logic elsewhere. Let us dole out 5
percent of the Defense Department funds in our district. Let us dole
out 5 percent of the funds for Medicare in our district, for Medicaid,
for food stamps, where the Congressman could surely know how to control
that.
Mr. Chairman, this is a corrupt process that is used to extend the
political careers and situations of Members of this body. It ought to
stop. I support this amendment.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, when we came here and became a majority,
we said we were going to change things. We were going to be different.
We were going to balance the budget, which we finally did now for the
first time in 30 years. And now we are getting ready to break that
commitment by $26 billion, $18 billion of it in special pork projects.
That is, in my mind, business as usual. What has changed? It is
wrong, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. That is the
right thing to do.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Graham) for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the
gentleman's amendment, and I want to make the point that the people get
this issue back home.
The editorial in the Mesa Tribune today: ``Pork barrel bribery.
Transit bill is out of whack.'' The editorial in yesterday's Wall
Street Journal: ``Highway robbery.'' Today's front page Arizona
Republic: ``Pork deal raw.''
The answer is this bill breaks every promise we made when we got
here. We came here and said we would not do business as usual, but this
bill has us spending money the same way money used to be spent. It is
pure and simple bribery.
Mr. Chairman, if we allow Members of Congress to control how the
money is spent in this bill, why not allow Members of Congress to
control how the money is spent in every bill? This is the kind of
project where it is pork by definition because of the way the support
was built.
The truth is these decisions need to be made on merit. They need to
be based on the real need for these transportation projects. They
should not be such that one State with a powerful committee chairman
gets hundreds of millions of dollars more, even billions of dollars
more than another State which has no Member on the committee. That is
the way Washington used to work and under this bill, it is sadly the
way this bill still works.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Inglis).
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) for yielding me this time.
[[Page H2015]]
Mr. Chairman, this is probably the most embarrassing night that I
have ever spent in this Congress, to realize that we came here to
change things and we are not. We are participating in the big old
trough that has characterized this place in the past, and it is a
terrible embarrassment to be part of the new majority and to stand here
and have to support this amendment that would take care of that trough
that we are seeing.
Mr. Chairman, there are 31 States who will be cheated as a result of
this bill and the demonstration projects in it. Not an opinion; it is a
mathematical fact. If a Member is from South Carolina and votes for
this bill, they are cheating the State of South Carolina. So it is for
30 other States. Unless Members happen to have the big dig going on in
their State or are from Pennsylvania, they are being cheated in this
bill.
Demonstration projects cheat their State, and in return they are
getting a press release. So they get a press release and their State
gets cheated. That is a lousy deal for their State and it is a lousy
deal for America.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and fix
this lousy bill.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I too am very embarrassed for this House.
We came here in the Class of 1994 in particular claiming that we were
willing to trade about anything to balance the budget and cut taxes.
Tonight we are the people busting the budget. We are the people with
the proposal billions of dollars higher than the United States Senate.
I am embarrassed at what is before us. I see media reports in Indiana
of Members of Congress who are getting money that is going to be
allocated to their county commissioners. That was not a carefully
scrutinized thing. It is up to the county commissioners now to decide
whether they have potholes on their roads. Any Member of Congress can
have such a thing.
It was not a carefully scrutinized process. Everybody here, whether
it was direct or indirect, knew that if they supported this bill they
would have access to certain funds. We all advocate different projects
at different times within the context of the balanced budget. This
busts the budget. This is contrary to what we ran on. By the time we
get done with this, the House and the Senate and the President, we are
going to have spent the supposed surplus and undermined everything we
claimed to have come here to do, and I am embarrassed for this body
tonight.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for
2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), listen up. You have used my name, and
that is okay. You talked about a letter I wrote, and that is okay. Last
year your committee called me and said there was $7 million for
projects in my district. I submitted a list of projects after talking
with the highway commissioner in the Third Congressional District, and
I appreciated the $7 million.
Two weeks ago I got a call from your committee, unsolicited, that
said I now have $15 million. I said no. You told me I had by 5 o'clock
two weeks ago to take the money or lose it, and I said no. And the
reason I said no is because the bill you put together spends $26
billion more than we can afford to spend.
What you are doing is, you are allowing this House to slip down a
slippery slope because your committee wants to take more of the
balanced budget pie than we gave it. And the next chairman and the next
worthy cause is going to do that.
You are going to make us take it out of somebody else's hide, because
you have an amendment in this package that requires this bill to be
offset. So we have to go to somebody else in this government and say,
``Give us $26 billion because we overspent on highways, but we are not
going to give a dime ourselves.''
Mr. Chairman, my amendment says give up the demonstration projects
and we reduce the amount we have to offset by 69 percent. But we are
not going to do that. We are going to go to other people in the
government and say, ``Give it up. But not us, buddy.''
Mr. Chairman, we reduce spending by 8 percent if we do away with the
demonstration projects. All of them are probably worthwhile. I am not
up here shaming anybody. Let us assume all 1,467 of them are
worthwhile. Look what has happened since the last time we did this.
Look how the number of projects has grown. Look how much money. We have
tripled the number of projects and increased the spending by a third.
I am not here to shame anyone and say that their project is not
worthwhile. I am here to say we cannot afford it. Families cannot
afford a lot of things they would like. But not us. Somebody in this
government is going to pay for this bill, but it will not be us. We
will not give one penny. We are going to take every penny we can get
and put it in the ground, in the asphalt, and somebody else is going to
have to give it up.
Mr. Chairman, that is what is wrong with this country. That is why we
cannot lead. The gentleman has taken the balanced budget agreement and
has made a sham out of it and we all should be ashamed.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to observe that it is
inappropriate for a Member to address directly another Member, and that
all remarks should be addressed to the Chair in proper debate.
Mr. Chairman, when all else fails, try the facts. The facts that are
this committee went through a very appropriate process of asking all
Members about projects that are priorities and important in their
district, priorities that their State has not addressed. Point 8 of our
14-point questionnaire: ``Is the project included in the metropolitan
and/or State transportation improvement plan or the State long-range
plan? Is it scheduled for funding?'' And on through a very objective
analysis of each project.
That is a fair way to do it. Who said that all wisdom resides in the
State? A statement was made earlier in this debate, decisions should be
made by the States, who know what the needs and priorities are in their
State. Well, the States will have the choice to match the required 20
percent or not to match it, to start projects under construction or not
to start those projects. Those are decisions that are left to the
States.
But let me tell my colleagues what kind of wisdom there is in State
government. There was a stretch of highway in my district on which,
over 15 years, 57 people have died. Where did that appear on the State
priority list? Nowhere, until I got involved in it and brought them
together, and now we are going to address long-term and immediate needs
on Highway 8, and there are not going to be any more deaths if I have
my way and if we have the funding that is in this legislation.
All of this talk about we are spending over the amount. Listen, we
give up $9 billion of the Highway Trust Fund, taxes already paid by
drivers in America who have been carrying for 30 years the burden of
government on their back, and we give up the future interest, $13
billion dollars. We paid for it. The drivers of America paid for this
bill over and over and over again, and now it is time to get their due
and let us invest in America. We know what projects are good and
important for our districts every bit as well as those governors do.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 405, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) printed in Part II of report
105-476.
[[Page H2016]]
Amendment No. 5 In The Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Spratt
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Part II amendment No. 5 in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Spratt:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. TWO-MONTH EXTENSION OF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there is
authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund
such sums as may be necessary to continue funding for an
additional two months each of the programs for which an
extension was provided under the Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 1997 (111 Stat. 2552 et seq.) at the same
monthly rate for which funds were provided for each such
program under such Act.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 405, the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and a Member opposed will each control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am for spending more on highways and mass transit,
but we have a process for deciding how much more and which priorities
we will pare back or preclude to make room for more spending on
highways so that we can keep the budget in balance.
The purpose of this amendment is basic and simple. It is just to let
this process work. What it calls for is regular order, nothing more.
Let us pass a budget resolution. Let us go through the 302(B)
allocation process. Let us identify $26 billion in offsets, or whatever
the amount may be, and then let us come back to this floor and pass
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I feel compelled to offer this amendment because I am
the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, and this bill does
not just skirt or evade the budget process, it is a frontal assault
upon it. It violates the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997, which we
only voted for a few months ago, and trumpeted by all of us who voted
for it, by authorizing $40 billion more for contracting authority than
the BBA provides and $26 billion in outlays over the next 5 years above
and beyond the BBA.
Mr. Chairman, it radically departs from the appropriations process by
letting the transportation conferees decide some $26 billion in offsets
to pay for their increases. All of these offsets are outside their
jurisdiction. It violates the Congressional Budget Act by being brought
to the floor ahead of the budget resolution. It violates the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990 by providing $9.3 billion in mandatory spending
for demonstration projects without identifying $9.3 billion in offsets.
And it dismantles the budget structure that we built up so
painstakingly over the last 15 years, which has brought us to a
balanced budget, by taking transportation off budget, removing it from
any strictures whatsoever.
To those who say there is not the time to do this process, this
amendment provides an answer.
{time} 1930
It extends the Surface Transportation Extension Act for another 2
months. This act was temporary in the first place. It runs out on May
1. It will have to be extended because it is highly unlikely that we
will have a conference report by then and, in any event, States will
not get any more budget authority under BESTEA than they will get under
this because the levels for 1998 are the same.
What we are proposing here once again, Mr. Chairman, is budget
discipline, the budget process that we built up over time. In the end,
I am sure transportation will get more. They have demonstrated that
Members from all parts of the country and all places on the spectrum
support more spending. But we will do it in a regular order procedure,
and we will do it in a process so we can determine exactly which
priorities will have to be displaced to give transportation more.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and I ask unanimous consent that he may
control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and I ask unanimous consent that he may
control and allocate the time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a terrible amendment because particularly for the Northern
States, it will destroy the opportunity to have funding as they prepare
for the winter season. It is wrong to pass another short-term
extension. Now that the May 1 deadline is before us, it is
irresponsible to impose additional short-term extensions.
An extension is going to interrupt the State's critical summer
contracting season. It is going to force the Northern tier States to
virtually lose an entire construction season. There will be
insufficient funds available for the States to have the certainty to go
forward with critical projects.
This amendment will delay any implementation of BESTEA until the last
quarter of fiscal 1998 and will put out additional funds, get this,
additional funds under the unfair Senate-imposed formula that was
included in the short-term bill that is now before us.
Many more States will receive more apportionments and obligation
authority than they would receive for the entire year under BESTEA.
This will preclude a full formula change for this year. Donor States
will have to wait another year for the formula, the fair formula, which
we have in this bill, to take, fully take effect.
This will completely upset the minimum allocation program and
apportion more funds that are not subject to any equity adjustment.
Members' projects will not be able to begin. They will lose a whole
season before these projects can be implemented. BESTEA simply spends
the new gas tax revenues coming into the Highway Trust Fund over the
next 6 years. That is what the people who pay these taxes expect.
Rather than upset the budget process, BESTEA, in fact, restores honesty
and fairness to the budget process.
In sum, this amendment will wreak additional havoc with the States,
virtually every State, but most particularly the Northern tier States.
It is unfair and unnecessary.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I want to thank both the ranking member and chairman. They
believe in what they are doing. We happen to disagree. But in every
instance that I have dealt with them they have always been gentlemen. I
just think they are wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I totally disagree with the arguments outlined by my
chairman from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This
amendment extends the temporary ISTEA bill for 2 months. We anticipate
that we will be able to pass a full bill before then. But what we are
being asked to do in this legislation is to spend and allocate $217
billion without having the offsets to pay for the new money. I think
that is wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
This is a good amendment. Let me use an analogy. Take a hot summer
day and there is a picnic and there are sandwiches and potato chips and
cookies there. And somebody comes along with ice tea, and it is 95
degrees out and that ice tea looks awfully good, and they fill your
glass. That is absolutely wonderful. But they make a mistake and they
fill it too much, and it spills on the sandwiches and on the potato
chips and the cookies, and it ruins them. That is what is happening
here.
[[Page H2017]]
This is good legislation. This is good ISTEA. To the extent that this
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to their great credit,
put together a formula and put together the numbers that we handled in
the budget agreement, they did a wonderful job. But they went too far.
They went too far by about $26 billion.
What this amendment is doing is saying let us wait for 2 months so we
can see how much money we are really going to have to be able to spend
on transportation, which we all agree should be done. We have heard all
manner of examples all afternoon of how we should spend money on
transportation. That is absolutely correct. But the bottom line is that
the glass has overflowed here and we have $26 billion too much in it.
I just spoke a moment ago on the demonstration projects. I think that
is poor public policy. Beyond that, we are looking at that additional
money. Where is it going to come from? We are about to vote blindly for
a piece of legislation in which we are not at all sure what the offsets
are. Let me remind Members of what we just went through with about $2.5
billion, which we could not find offsets. What are we going to go
through on $26 billion? Who is going to suffer on that?
As I stated earlier, will education suffer? Will the environment
suffer? Will housing suffer? Will defense suffer? Will the balanced
budget suffer? Any of these things could suffer. The Spratt amendment
makes all the sense in the world. The 2-month month delay will not hurt
anything, and it will let us do what is the most important thing we are
going to do this year, balance our budget. Support the Spratt
amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Surface Transportation.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for
yielding the time to me.
I commend the gentleman from South Carolina, the ranking member on
our Committee on the Budget, for the work that he does on that
committee. He is proposing an amendment here that would allow the
normal congressional budget process to work its will prior to enactment
of BESTEA. Unfortunately, highway construction seasons across our
country do not necessarily allow themselves, because of the seasons
through which they go, to follow our normal budget processes in
Congress.
The other body decided to proceed full steam ahead with this
legislation prior to consideration of their budget resolution. And I
think our House leadership made the appropriate decision in
consultation with our House budget chairman, to proceed forthwith on
this legislation at this time. We are facing a May 1 deadline.
After May 1, the States will lose their ability to obligate spending
authority and in many States much more, so in our Northern States and
other States, this will truly wreak havoc in their transportation
planning decisions.
Not only will it wreak havoc in the States, but there could very well
be a problem with the FHWA here in Washington. There are staffing
problems to consider. We do not want to face any type of a government
shutdown at FHWA, which would truly be devastating to our road mapping
processes and transportation decisions across this country.
There is no way to plan if the States are faced with a cutoff of
obligational authority come May 1. It is truly a drop-dead date. We do
not have the luxury of trying to comply with the budget process or time
frames that have been set up here in this Congress.
We are talking about spending what the American taxpayers and the
American motorists in particular have already paid at the gas pump and
that is why we must proceed here forthwith without waited for any
budget resolutions. It is no way to plan America's future. It is no way
to plan for the safety on our Nation's highways.
If we are to delay this process and find come May 1, or a couple of
weeks thereafter if we face a slippage that the States do not have the
definitive schedule upon which to base the letting of contracts within
their borders. So I would submit that while the chairman of, the
ranking member of our Committee on the Budget has noble goals in mind,
this is perhaps a back-door effort used by some on the other side of
the aisle to truly kill this bill.
I would urge defeat.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members that the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 2 minutes remaining, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 3 minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has the right to close.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio).
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, this vote is not just about
bridges and highways. We are all for them. It is a vote about
priorities, a vote about fiscal discipline and a promise we made to
America just last year. Unfortunately, as the majority leader put it
the other day, the leadership of the House is more concerned about
haste rather than substance.
As a result, we may unravel the first balanced budget in a
generation. This is no way to write a budget. The cart is way before
the horse. If we approve this bill we are going to have to make
substantial cuts in the budget. Where do we get the $26 billion from;
defense? From senior citizen housing, again, another day? From our kids
health care? From education or maybe our seaports or airports, as we
did the other day?
Those of us on the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on
Appropriations already knew we were going to have to shave billions of
dollars from the Federal budget just based on last year's budget deal.
Now we will have to find billions of dollars more to cut.
Mr. Chairman, it boils down for us today to a question of courage.
Let us be responsible about spending. Let us set our budget priorities
in the manner they should be set and let us show the American people we
have the courage to live within our means.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), distinguished chairman of our subcommittee.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make several points.
First of all, I have watched one-minutes sometimes and hear the spin
people are trying to give to this Congress. Some Members are saying we
are a do-nothing Congress. And then Members are stepping forward and
saying we should not do something.
We are trying to meet a major need of our country by passing this
bill at an appropriate time, as asked by the national Governors who
wanted us, if we possibly can, to get this done so that they can go
forward with their construction seasons and plans this summer by May 1.
If we had some assurances that the budgeteers would act in a reasonable
and timely way, that is one thing. But knowing how these things work
around here, they are not going to, I do not think.
We do not have any assurance that we will have a budget resolution
passed and ready to guide Congress by May 1 or thereby. We will be
lucky, last year I think it slipped into June or July. So that means if
we waited for this process, we are into September or October and
Congress will be gone.
This is saying we do not want to address the needs of the country. We
do not want to deal with the donor State question in this Congress.
That is what it is saying. They want to be a do-nothing Congress, not a
do-something Congress. I think that is just plain wrong.
I have some suggestions for our budget friends as they say where we
can find this money. We are giving up $9 billion, writing it off the
debt of the United States. No scoring for that. We are lowered, by the
budget resolution, the caps, by about $9 billion below what we are
actually spending. That mistake could be corrected. That is not really
an increase in spending, when we just continue in constant levels, yet
they score us with cuts. We are giving up $14 billion of interest over
the life of this bill. That is not being scored either.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
[[Page H2018]]
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not about roads. We
desperately need roads. My State of Arizona is a growing State and it
has great need for roads. But I rise in support of the Spratt
amendment. It is a matter of process. This amendment sets the cart
right. The bill, as it currently is proceeding before Congress, has the
cart before the horse, simply put.
As a matter of budget discipline, we cannot pass this bill at this
time without grave consequences. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the
Federal Reserve, came before the Committee on the Budget, of which, and
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) are members and said,
whatever you do in this Congress, you must not break the caps. He did
not say you must not break them by a large amount. He said you must not
break the caps. The signal you will send to this economy is dynamic. If
you break the caps at all, you will destroy the discipline you have
established.
This amendment will allow us the time to get the budget figures in
mid month, to look at where we are and to do the process in an orderly
fashion. The bill, in its current form, spends $26 billion above the
budget caps. We have to find offsets that are nowhere in this current
legislation.
It includes demonstration projects which, as we can see by the
debate, are highly controversial. We need to identify those offsets and
to proceed in a regular order. And if this bill were so correct and so
fitting within the current figures, why does it spend $30 billion more
than we authorized just 10 months ago in the balanced budget agreement?
I support the amendment.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) is recognized
for 1 minute.
{time} 1945
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
As someone who voted for the gas tax to reduce the deficit in both
1990 and 1993, I have to say to my friends on the Republican side, if
Democrats had brought a bill to the floor with mandatory spending and
no offsets, or spending and no offsets, they would have laughed us off
the floor. We never tried it. We did not try it. I cannot believe this
process.
Why do we not deal with it honestly? There are people who prefer
spending transportation money to other expenditures. That is a
legitimate decision. But let us deal with the reality of the spending
cuts that we then have to make. Let us be honest. This is not money
from heaven. There are trade-offs. Let us understand those trade-offs.
Let us pay some attention to the process that we are breaking here
today.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina offers
a very appealing and even compelling, rational, thoughtful argument. It
is a neatly constructed syllogism which I appreciate. The horse should
be before the cart, in very plain terms, the horse being the budget.
We did that last year. We had the debate on the budget resolution. We
had the Shuster-Oberstar amendment, which asked Members to make
choices, to prioritize, to decide where they wanted to pin dollars on
their values. We came within two votes of prevailing because we offered
something that was very reasonable and very responsible. We had an
across-the-board minuscule cut.
Everybody is going to have a little cut. Little bit less in taxes,
little bit less in defense, little bit less on domestic discretionary.
And we exempted the mandatory programs and the entitlements. And we
should have won.
I think that the reason that we are not doing it that way this year,
I say to my good friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt), is there some way up there in the White House and in the
clouds above Mount Gingrich who are afraid that we will win, that we
will win that battle, that our values will prevail; and, so, they did
not want to have it that way.
Now, this 3-month extension, that is a nice idea, buy a little time.
Let me tell my colleagues what that buys. In my State we have two
seasons, winter and road construction. And this is going to put us
right through road construction into winter again, and it is going to
do that for a whole northern tier of the United States. I do not think
that makes a whole lot of sense.
We have had the debate. We have had all the numbers spelled out here.
I think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) have spelled it out; and I said it myself,
look, we gave up $9 billion of taxes paid by the driving public of
America that are in the Trust Fund. Commitments made, not delivered on.
That is going to go off there into the ether somewhere to reduce that
$3 trillion debt.
I hope everyone feels good about that. It is not going to build any
roads.
Then we yield another $15 billion out into the future in interest on
the dollars coming into the Trust Fund. I hope my colleagues feel
awfully good about that, because that is not going to build any roads
either.
This bill builds roads and bridges and transit systems and keeps
America mobile and productive, and we ought to defeat this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 30 seconds remaining. The gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. And the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has 1 minute remaining and the right to
close.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) also.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, from 1981 to 1992, we increased the debt of
America by 437 percent. We did so doing good things the wrong way.
Yesterday, we passed a $2.9 billion bill and the majority demanded
offsets before it passed. Today, we add $26 billion to the deficit,
with offsets unknown. We should have, my friends, the discipline to
pass a budget prior to adding $26 billion in spending before the caps.
My colleagues, we have come a long way in balancing the budget. Let
us not fail now. Let us show the discipline to say, yes, we want these
things; yes, we want to invest in the infrastructure of America; but
let us determine how we are going to pay for it before we do it. That
437 percent increase in the debt was because we did not answer that
question first.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge), who was my partner in trying to put forward a
balanced budget amendment.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to briefly say that all of
us support transportation. We think it is vital in our country; it is
important; it is our infrastructure. At the same time, all of us are
sensitive to the practical needs of the States.
I think the important thing to recognize is that the bill reported
out of Committee does not increase the spending in 1998 above the
budget agreement. We do not have to worry about ruining the States'
ability to construct roads in 1998 or let contracts. That is not what
is at issue here. That is a red herring.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
We spent 11 years trying to get our country's financial house in
order. We are so close. And now we are spending the surplus we do not
even have. We gave the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
$20 billion above last year's agreement. We are giving them another $26
to $33 billion this year. We do not even have offsets.
For me, this is an amazing time. I salute my colleagues on the other
side who have done this in a bipartisan way. But we spent 30 years
having deficits in a bipartisan way. I thought we had ended that.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
A 2-month short-term extension is terrible policy for our State
transportation departments, for the people
[[Page H2019]]
across America. This will destroy the construction season for many if
not all of the States. There will be insufficient funding for the
States to have certainty to proceed with projects. And, indeed, this
will extend the unfair Senate-imposed formulas which we are living with
now. And most importantly in that regard, the donor States will have to
wait another year for the formula changes to take place; and Member
projects will be delayed for another year.
Now, my good friend on the other side said, ``This is not money from
heaven.'' How true that is. This is not money from heaven. This is
money from the gas tax paid by the American people at the pump, and we
do not spend one penny more than the revenue coming in.
Defeat this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 405, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 6 printed in Part II of
House Report 105-476.
Amendment No. 6 In The Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Kasich
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Part II amendment No. 6 in the nature of a substitute
offered by Mr. Kasich:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Transportation Empowerment
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the objective of the Federal highway program has been
to facilitate the construction of a modern freeway system
that promotes efficient interstate commerce by connecting all
States;
(2) that objective has been attained and the Interstate
System connecting all States is near completion;
(3) each State has the responsibility of providing an
efficient transportation network for the residents of the
State;
(4) each State has the means to build and operate a network
of transportation systems, including highways, that best
serves the needs of the State;
(5) each State is best capable of determining the needs of
the State and acting on those needs;
(6) the Federal role in highway transportation has, over
time, usurped the role of the States by taxing fuels used in
the States and then distributing the proceeds to the States
based on the Federal Government's perceptions of what is best
for the States;
(7) the Federal Government has used the Federal gasoline
tax revenues to force all States to take actions that are not
necessarily appropriate for individual States;
(8) the Federal distribution, review, and enforcement
process wastes billions of dollars on unproductive
activities;
(9) Federal mandates that apply uniformly to all 50 States,
regardless of the different circumstances of the States,
cause the States to waste billions of hard-earned tax dollars
on projects, programs, and activities that the States would
not otherwise undertake; and
(10) Congress has expressed a strong interest in reducing
the role of the Federal Government by allowing each State to
manage its own affairs.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to return to the individual States maximum
discretionary authority and fiscal responsibility for all
elements of the national transportation systems that are not
within the direct purview of the Federal Government;
(2) to preserve Federal responsibility for the Dwight D.
Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense
Highways;
(3) to preserve the responsibility of the Department of
Transportation for--
(A) design, construction, and preservation of
transportation facilities on Federal public lands;
(B) national programs of transportation research and
development and transportation safety; and
(C) emergency assistance to the States in response to
natural disasters;
(4) to eliminate to the maximum extent practicable Federal
obstacles to the ability of each State to apply innovative
solutions to the financing, design, construction, operation,
and preservation of State and Federal transportation
facilities; and
(5) with respect to transportation activities carried out
by States, local governments, and the private sector, to
encourage--
(A) competition among States, local governments, and the
private sector; and
(B) innovation, energy efficiency, private sector
participation, and productivity.
SEC. 3. CONTINUATION OF FUNDING FOR CORE HIGHWAY PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Funding.--For the purpose of carrying out title 23,
United States Code, the following sums are authorized to be
appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund:
(A) Interstate maintenance program.--For the Interstate
maintenance program under section 119 of title 23, United
States Code, $5,100,000,000 for fiscal year 1999,
$5,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $5,400,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001, $5,600,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and
$5,700,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(B) Interstate and indian reservation bridge program.--For
the Interstate and Indian reservation bridge program under
section 144 of that title $1,217,000,000 for fiscal year
1999, $1,251,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $1,286,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001, $1,321,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and
$1,360,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(C) Federal lands highways program.--
(i) Indian reservation roads.--For Indian reservation roads
under section 204 of that title $202,000,000 for fiscal year
1999, $208,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $214,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001, $220,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and
$225,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(ii) Public lands highways.--For public lands highways
under section 204 of that title $182,000,000 for fiscal year
1999, $187,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $192,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001, $197,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and
$201,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(iii) Parkways and park roads.--For parkways and park roads
under section 204 of that title $89,000,000 for fiscal year
1999, $91,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $94,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001, $97,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and
$99,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(iv) Highway safety programs.--For highway safety programs
under section 402 of that title $171,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
(v) Highway safety research and development.--For highway
safety research and development under section 403 of that
title $44,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
(2) Transferability of funds.--Section 104 of title 23,
United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (g) and
inserting the following:
``(g) Transferability of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--To the extent that a State determines
that funds made available under this title to the State for a
purpose are in excess of the needs of the State for that
purpose, the State may transfer the excess funds to, and use
the excess funds for, any surface transportation (including
mass transit and rail) purpose in the State.
``(2) Enforcement.--If the Secretary determines that a
State has transferred funds under paragraph (1) to a purpose
that is not a surface transportation purpose as described in
paragraph (1), the amount of the improperly transferred funds
shall be deducted from any amount the State would otherwise
receive from the Highway Trust Fund for the fiscal year that
begins after the date of the determination.''.
(3) Federal-aid system.--Section 103(a) of title 23, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``systems are the
Interstate System and the National Highway System'' and
inserting ``system is the Interstate System''.
(4) Interstate maintenance program.--
(A) Funding.--Section 104(b)(5) of title 23, United States
Code, is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting
the following:
``(B) Interstate maintenance.--For each of fiscal years
1999 through 2003, for the Interstate maintenance program
under section 119, 1 percent to the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands and the remaining 99 percent apportioned as follows:
``(i)(I) For each State with an average population density
of 20 persons or fewer per square mile, and each State with a
population of 1,500,000 persons or fewer and with a land area
of 10,000 square miles or less, the greater of--
``(aa) a percentage share of apportionments equal to the
percentage listed for the State in subclause (II); or
``(bb) a share determined under clause (ii).
``(II) The percentage referred to in subclause (I)(aa) is
as follows:
``States: Percentage:
Alabama.........................................................2.02
Alaska..........................................................1.24
Arizona.........................................................1.68
Arkansas........................................................1.32
California......................................................9.81
Colorado........................................................1.23
Connecticut.....................................................1.00
Delaware........................................................0.40
District of Columbia............................................0.13
Florida.........................................................4.77
Georgia.........................................................3.60
Hawaii..........................................................0.55
Idaho...........................................................0.70
Illinois........................................................3.71
Indiana.........................................................2.63
Iowa............................................................1.13
[[Page H2020]]
Kansas..........................................................1.10
Kentucky........................................................1.91
Louisiana.......................................................1.63
Maine...........................................................0.50
Maryland........................................................1.64
Massachusetts...................................................1.68
Michigan........................................................3.34
Minnesota.......................................................1.56
Mississippi.....................................................1.23
Missouri........................................................2.45
Montana.........................................................0.95
Nebraska........................................................0.73
Nevada..........................................................0.67
New Hampshire...................................................0.48
New Jersey......................................................2.28
New Mexico......................................................1.05
New York........................................................4.27
North Carolina..................................................2.83
North Dakota....................................................0.63
Ohio............................................................3.77
Oklahoma........................................................1.55
Oregon..........................................................1.23
Pennsylvania....................................................4.12
Puerto Rico.....................................................0.50
Rhode Island....................................................0.55
South Carolina..................................................1.63
South Dakota....................................................0.70
Tennessee.......................................................2.30
Texas...........................................................7.21
Utah............................................................0.71
Vermont.........................................................0.43
Virginia........................................................2.61
Washington......................................................1.75
West Virginia...................................................0.76
Wisconsin.......................................................1.91
Wyoming.........................................................0.66.
``(ii) For each State not described in clause (i), a share
of the apportionments remaining determined in accordance with
the following formula:
``(I) \1/9\ in the ratio that the total rural lane miles in
each State bears to the total rural lane miles in all States
with an average population density greater than 20 persons
per square mile and all States with a population of more than
1,500,000 persons and with a land area of more than 10,000
square miles.
``(II) \1/9\ in the ratio that the total rural vehicle
miles traveled in each State bears to the total rural vehicle
miles traveled in all States described in subclause (I).
``(III) \2/9\ in the ratio that the total urban lane miles
in each State bears to the total urban lane miles in all
States described in subclause (I).
``(IV) \2/9\ in the ratio that the total urban vehicle
miles traveled in each State bears to the total urban vehicle
miles traveled in all States described in subclause (I).
``(V) \3/9\ in the ratio that the total diesel fuel used in
each State bears to the total diesel fuel used in all States
described in subclause (I).''.
(B) Conforming amendments.--Section 119(f) of title 23,
United States Code, is amended--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``If'' and inserting
``For each of fiscal years 1991 through 1997, if''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``through fiscal
year 1997'' after ``thereafter''.
(5) Interstate bridge program.--Section 144 of title 23,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (d)--
(i) by inserting ``on the Federal-aid system as described
in subsection (c)(3)'' after ``highway bridge'' each place it
appears; and
(ii) by inserting ``on the Federal-aid system as described
in subsection (c)(3)'' after ``highway bridges'' each place
it appears;
(B) in the second sentence of subsection (e)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the comma at the end and
inserting a period; and
(iii) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4);
(C) in the first sentence of subsection (l), by inserting
``on the Federal-aid system as described in subsection
(c)(3)'' after ``any bridge'';
(D) in subsection (m), by inserting ``on the Federal-aid
system as described in subsection (c)(3)'' after ``any
bridge''; and
(E) in the first sentence of subsection (n), by inserting
``for each of fiscal years 1991 through 1997,'' after ``of
law,''.
(6) National defense highways.--Section 311 of title 23,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``under subsection
(a) of section 104 of this title'' and inserting ``to carry
out this section''; and
(B) by striking the second sentence.
(7) Termination of minimum allocation.--Section 157 of
title 23, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(4), by striking ``fiscal year 1992
and each fiscal year thereafter'' and inserting ``each of
fiscal years 1992 through 1997''; and
(B) in subsection (e), by striking ``the fiscal years
ending on or after September 30, 1983'' and inserting
``fiscal years 1983 through 1997''.
(8) Motor carrier safety grants.--Section 31104 of title
49, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
``(6) not more than $90,000,000 for each of fiscal years
1999 through 2003.''; and
(B) in subsection (g)(1)--
(i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``1993-1997'' and
inserting ``1993 through 2003'';
(ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``1993-1997'' and
inserting ``1993 through 2003''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``1996, and 1997''
and inserting ``1996 through 2003''.
(b) Extension of Highway-Related Taxes and Highway Trust
Fund.--
(1) Extension of taxes.--The following provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by striking
``1999'' each place it appears and inserting ``2004'':
(A) Section 4041(a)(1)(C)(iii)(I) (relating to rate of tax
on certain buses).
(B) Section 4041(a)(2)(B) (relating to rate of tax on
special motor fuels), as amended by section 907(a)(1) of the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
(C) Section 4041(m)(1)(A) (relating to certain alcohol
fuels), as amended by section 907(b) of the Taxpayer Relief
Act of 1997.
(D) Section 4051(c) (relating to termination).
(E) Section 4071(d) (relating to termination).
(F) Section 4081(d)(1) (relating to termination).
(G) Section 4481(e) (relating to period tax in effect).
(H) Section 4482(c)(4) (relating to taxable period).
(I) Section 4482(d) (relating to special rule for taxable
period in which termination date occurs).
(2) Other provisions.--
(A) Floor stocks refunds.--Section 6412(a)(1) of such Code
(relating to floor stocks refunds) is amended--
(i) by striking ``1999'' each place it appears and
inserting ``2004'', and
(ii) by striking ``2000'' each place it appears and
inserting ``2005''.
(B) Installment payments of highway use tax.--Section
6156(e)(2) of such Code (relating to installment payments of
highway use tax on use of highway motor vehicles) is amended
by striking ``1999'' and inserting ``2004''.
(3) Extension of certain exemptions.--The following
provisions of such Code are each amended by striking ``1999''
and inserting ``2004'':
(A) Section 4221(a) (relating to certain tax-free sales).
(B) Section 4483(g) (relating to termination of exemptions
for highway use tax).
(4) Extension of deposits into, and certain transfers from,
trust fund.--
(A) In general.--Subsection (b), and paragraphs (2) and (3)
of subsection (c), of section 9503 of such Code (relating to
the Highway Trust Fund) are each amended--
(i) by striking ``1999'' each place it appears (other than
in subsection (b)(4)) and inserting ``2003'', and
(ii) by striking ``2000'' each place it appears and
inserting ``2004''.
(B) Motorboat and small-engine fuel tax transfers.--
(i) In general.--Paragraphs (4)(A)(i), (5)(A), and (6)(E)
of section 9503(c) of such Code are each amended by striking
``1998'' and inserting ``2003''.
(ii) Conforming amendments to land and water conservation
fund.--Section 201(b) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-11(b)) is amended--
(I) by striking ``1997'' and inserting ``2003'', and
(II) by striking ``1998'' each place it appears and
inserting ``2004''.
(C) Conforming amendment.--The heading for paragraph (3) of
section 9503(c) of such Code is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Floor stocks refunds.--''.
(5) Extension and expansion of expenditures from trust
fund.--
(A) Extension of expenditure authority.--Paragraph (1) of
section 9503(c) of such Code is amended by striking ``1998''
and inserting ``2003''.
(B) Expansion of purposes.--Paragraph (1) of section
9503(c) of such Code is amended--
(i) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C), and
(ii) by striking ``1991.'' in subparagraph (D) and all that
follows through the end of paragraph (1) and inserting
``1991, or
``(E) authorized to be paid out of the Highway Trust Fund
under the Transportation Empowerment Act.
In determining the authorizations under the Acts referred to
in the preceding subparagraphs, such Acts shall be applied as
in effect on the date of the enactment of the Transportation
Empowerment Act.''.
(c) Termination of Transfers to Mass Transit Account.--
(1) In general.--Section 9503(e)(2) of such Code (relating
to Mass Transit Account) is amended by striking ``2.85
cents'' and inserting ``2.85 cents (zero, on and after
October 1, 1998)''.
(2) Authorization to expend remaining balances in
account.--Section 9503(e)(3) of such Code is amended by
striking ``before October 1, 1998''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on October 1, 1998.
SEC. 4. INFRASTRUCTURE SPECIAL ASSISTANCE FUND.
(a) In General.--Section 9503 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Establishment of Infrastructure Special Assistance
Fund.--
``(1) Creation of fund.--There is established in the
Highway Trust Fund a separate fund to be known as the
`Infrastructure Special Assistance Fund' consisting of such
amounts as may be transferred or credited to the
Infrastructure Special Assistance Fund as provided in this
subsection or section 9602(b).
``(2) Transfers to infrastructure special assistance
fund.--On the first day of
[[Page H2021]]
each fiscal year after 1998 and before 2003, the Secretary
shall transfer $300,000,000 from the Highway Trust Fund to
Infrastructure Special Assistance Fund.
``(3) Expenditures from infrastructure special assistance
fund.--
``(A) Transitional assistance.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (iv),
during fiscal years 1999 through 2002, the amount in the
Infrastructure Special Assistance Fund shall be available to
States for transportation-related program expenditures.
``(ii) State share.--
``(I) In general.--Except as provided in clause (v), each
State is entitled to a share of the $1,200,000,000 specified
in paragraph (2) upon enactment of legislation providing 1 of
the 2 funding mechanisms described in clause (iii).
``(II) Determination of state share.--For purposes of
subclause (I), each State's share shall be determined in the
following manner:
``(aa) Multiply the percentage of the amounts appropriated
in the latest fiscal year for which such data are available
to the Highway Trust Fund under subsection (b) which is
attributable to taxes paid by highway users in the State, by
the amount specified in paragraph (2). If the result does not
exceed $15,000,000, the State's share equals $15,000,000. If
the result exceeds $15,000,000, the State's share is
determined under item (bb).
``(bb) Multiply the percentage determined under item (aa),
by the amount specified in clause (i) reduced by an amount
equal to $15,000,000 times the number of States the share of
which is determined under item (aa).
``(iii) Legislative funding mechanisms.--A funding
mechanism is described in this clause as follows:
``(I) A funding mechanism which results in revenues for
transportation-related projects in the State for fiscal year
2003 and each succeeding fiscal year which are equal to the
excess of--
``(aa) the mean annual average of distributions from the
Highway Trust Fund to the State for fiscal years 1992 through
1997; over
``(bb) the distributions from the Highway Trust Fund to the
State for such fiscal year attributable to the core programs
financing rate for such year.
``(II) A funding mechanism which results in an increase in
the State rate of tax on motor fuels equal to the decrease in
the rate of tax on such fuels under section 4081 for fiscal
year 2003 and any succeeding fiscal year.
``(iv) Distribution of remaining amount.--If after
September 30, 2002, a portion of the amount specified in
paragraph (2) remains, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Transportation, shall, on October 1, 2002,
apportion the portion among the States which received a share
of such amount under clause (ii) and which are not described
in clause (v) using the percentages determined under clause
(ii)(II)(aa) for such States.
``(v) Enforcement of funding mechanism requirement.--If a
State, which enacted legislation providing for a funding
mechanism described in clause (iii), terminates such
mechanism before fiscal year 2003, the State's share
determined under clauses (ii) and (iv) shall be deducted from
any amount the State would otherwise receive from the Highway
Trust Fund for fiscal year 2003.
``(B) Additional expenditures from fund.--
``(i) In general.--Amounts in the Infrastructure Special
Assistance Fund, in excess of the amount specified in
paragraph (2), shall be available, as provided by
appropriation Acts, to the States for any surface
transportation (including mass transit and rail) purpose in
such States, and the Secretary shall apportion such excess
amounts among all States using the percentages determined
under clause (ii)(II)(aa) for such States.
``(ii) Enforcement.--If the Secretary determines that a
State has used amounts under clause (i) for a purpose which
is not a surface transportation purpose as described in
clause (i), the improperly used amounts shall be deducted
from any amount the State would otherwise receive from the
Highway Trust Fund for the fiscal year which begins after the
date of the determination.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
takes effect on October 1, 1998.
SEC. 5. RETURN OF EXCESS TAX RECEIPTS TO STATES.
(a) In General.--Section 9503 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Return of Excess Tax Receipts to States for Surface
Transportation Purposes.--
``(1) In general.--On the first day of each of fiscal years
1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, the Secretary, in consultation
with the Secretary of Transportation, shall determine--
``(A) the excess highway receipts for such year, and
``(B) allocate such excess highway receipts among the
States (as defined in section 101 of title 23, United States
Code) in proportion to their respective shares of the amount
described in paragraph (2)(A) in the latest fiscal year for
which such data are available which is attributable to
highway users in the State.
Amounts allocated to a State under this paragraph may be used
only for surface transportation (including mass transit and
rail) purposes.
``(2) Excess highway tax receipts.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `excess highway tax receipts' means,
with respect to any fiscal year, the excess of--
``(A) the aggregate amount which would be appropriated to
the Highway Trust Fund if each of the rates specified in
section 4081(a)(2)(A) were reduced by 4.3 cents, over
``(B) the sum of--
``(i) the aggregate amount which would be appropriated to
the Highway Trust Fund if each of such rates equaled the core
programs financing rate for such year, plus
``(ii) the aggregate of the amounts transferred from the
Highway Trust Fund under paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of
subsection (c) for such year.
``(3) Core programs financing rate.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `core programs financing rate' means--
``(A) after September 30, 1998, and before October 1, 1999,
12 cents per gallon,
``(B) after September 30, 1999, and before October 1, 2000,
7 cents per gallon,
``(C) after September 30, 2000, and before October 1, 2001,
4 cents per gallon, and
``(D) after September 30, 2001, 3 cents per gallon.
``(4) Enforcement.--If the Secretary determines that a
State has used amounts under subparagraph (A) for a purpose
which is not a surface transportation purpose as described in
paragraph (1), the improperly used amounts shall be deducted
from any amount the State would otherwise receive from the
Highway Trust Fund for the fiscal year which begins after the
date of the determination.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
takes effect on October 1, 1998.
SEC. 6. INTERSTATE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION COMPACTS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Infrastructure bank.--The term ``infrastructure bank''
means a surface transportation infrastructure bank
established under an interstate compact under subsection
(b)(5) and described in subsection (d).
(2) Participating states.--The term ``participating
States'' means the States that are parties to an interstate
compact entered into under subsection (b).
(3) Surface transportation.--The term ``surface
transportation'' includes mass transit and rail.
(4) Surface transportation project.--The term ``surface
transportation project'' means a surface transportation
project, program, or activity described in subsection (b).
(b) Consent of Congress.--In order to increase public
investment, attract needed private investment, and promote an
intermodal transportation network, Congress grants consent to
States to enter into interstate compacts to--
(1) promote the continuity, quality, and safety of the
Interstate System;
(2) develop programs to promote and fund surface
transportation safety initiatives and establish surface
transportation safety standards for the participating States;
(3) conduct long-term planning for surface transportation
infrastructure in the participating States;
(4) develop design and construction standards for
infrastructure described in paragraph (3) to be used by the
participating States; and
(5) establish surface transportation infrastructure banks
to promote regional or other multistate investment in
infrastructure described in paragraph (3).
(c) Financing.--An interstate compact established by
participating States under subsection (b) to carry out a
surface transportation project may provide that, in order to
carry out the compact, the participating States may--
(1) accept contributions from a unit of State or local
government or a person;
(2) use any Federal or State funds made available for that
type of surface transportation project;
(3) on such terms and conditions as the participating
States consider advisable--
(A) borrow money on a short-term basis and issue notes for
the borrowing; and
(B) issue bonds; and
(4) obtain financing by other means permitted under Federal
or State law, including surface transportation infrastructure
banks under subsection (d).
(d) Infrastructure Banks.--
(1) In general.--An infrastructure bank may--
(A) make loans;
(B) under the joint or separate authority of the
participating States with respect to the infrastructure bank,
issue such debt as the infrastructure bank and the
participating States determine appropriate; and
(C) provide other assistance to public or private entities
constructing, or proposing to construct or initiate, surface
transportation projects.
(2) Forms of assistance.--
(A) In general.--An infrastructure bank may make a loan or
provide other assistance described in subparagraph (C) to a
public or private entity in an amount equal to all or part of
the construction cost, capital cost, or initiation cost of a
surface transportation project.
(B) Subordination of assistance.--The amount of any loan or
other assistance described in subparagraph (C) that is
received for a surface transportation project under this
section may be subordinated to any other debt financing for
the surface transportation project.
(C) Other assistance.--Other assistance referred to in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) includes any use of funds for the
purpose of--
[[Page H2022]]
(i) credit enhancement;
(ii) a capital reserve for bond or debt instrument
financing;
(iii) bond or debt instrument financing issuance costs;
(iv) bond or debt issuance financing insurance;
(v) subsidization of interest rates;
(vi) letters of credit;
(vii) any credit instrument;
(viii) bond or debt financing instrument security; and
(ix) any other form of debt financing that relates to the
qualifying surface transportation project.
(3) No obligation of united states.--
(A) In general.--The establishment under this section of an
infrastructure bank does not constitute a commitment,
guarantee, or obligation on the part of the United States to
any third party with respect to any security or debt
financing instrument issued by the bank. No third party shall
have any right against the United States for payment solely
by reason of the establishment.
(B) Statement on instrument.--Any security or debt
financing instrument issued by an infrastructure bank shall
expressly state that the security or instrument does not
constitute a commitment, guarantee, or obligation of the
United States.
(e) Effective Date.--This section takes effect on October
1, 1998.
SEC. 7. FEDERAL-AID FACILITY PRIVATIZATION.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Executive agency.--The term ``Executive agency'' has
the meaning provided in section 105 of title 5, United States
Code.
(2) Privatization.--The term ``privatization'' means the
disposition or transfer of a transportation infrastructure
asset, whether by sale, lease, or similar arrangement, from a
State or local government to a private party.
(3) State or local government.--The term ``State or local
government'' means the government of--
(A) any State;
(B) the District of Columbia;
(C) any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the
United States;
(D) any county, municipality, city, town, township, local
public authority, school district, special district,
intrastate district, regional or interstate government
entity, council of governments, or agency or instrumentality
of a local government; or
(E) any federally recognized Indian tribe.
(4) Transportation infrastructure asset.--
(A) In general.--The term ``transportation infrastructure
asset'' means any surface-transportation-related asset
financed in whole or in part by the Federal Government,
including a road, tunnel, bridge, or mass-transit-related or
rail-related asset.
(B) Exclusion.--The term does not include any
transportation-related asset on the Interstate System (as
defined in section 101 of title 23, United States Code).
(b) Privatization Initiatives by State and Local
Governments.--The head of each Executive agency shall--
(1) assist State and local governments in efforts to
privatize the transportation infrastructure assets of the
State and local governments; and
(2) subject to subsection (c), approve requests from State
and local governments to privatize transportation
infrastructure assets and waive or modify any condition
relating to the original Federal program that funded the
asset.
(c) Criteria.--The head of an Executive agency shall
approve a request described in subsection (b)(2) if--
(1) the State or local government demonstrates that a
market mechanism, legally enforceable agreement, or
regulatory mechanism will ensure that the transportation
infrastructure asset will continue to be used for the general
objectives of the original Federal program that funded the
asset (which shall not be considered to include every
condition required for the recipient of Federal funds to have
obtained the original Federal funds), so long as needed for
those objectives; and
(2) the private party purchasing or leasing the
transportation infrastructure asset agrees to comply with all
applicable conditions of the original Federal program.
(d) Lack of Obligation To Repay Federal Funds.--A State or
local government shall have no obligation to repay to any
agency of the Federal Government any Federal funds received
by the State or local government in connection with a
transportation infrastructure asset that is privatized under
this section.
(e) Use of Proceeds.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), a State or local
government may use proceeds from the privatization of a
transportation infrastructure asset to the extent permitted
under applicable conditions of the original Federal program.
(2) Recovery of certain costs.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the State or local government shall be
permitted to recover from the privatization of a
transportation infrastructure asset--
(A) the capital investment in the transportation
infrastructure asset made by the State or local government;
(B) an amount equal to the unreimbursed operating expenses
in the transportation infrastructure asset paid by the State
or local government; and
(C) a reasonable rate of return on the investment made
under subparagraph (A) and expenses paid under subparagraph
(B).
SEC. 8. REDUCTION IN MOTOR FUEL TAXES ON OCTOBER 1, 2002.
(a) Reduction in Tax Rates.--Section 4081(a)(2)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to rates of tax) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``18.3 cents'' and inserting ``7.3 cents'',
(2) by striking ``19.3 cents'' and inserting ``8.3 cents'',
and
(3) by striking ``24.3 cents'' and inserting ``7.3 cents''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 4041(a)(2)(B) of such
Code are each amended by striking the number of cents
specified therein and inserting ``4.3 cents''.
(2) Section 6427(b)(2)(A) of such Code is amended by
striking ``7.4 cents'' and inserting ``0.1 cent''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fuel removed after September 30, 2002.
(d) Floor Stock Refunds.--
(1) In general.--If--
(A) before October 1, 2002, tax has been imposed under
section 4081 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 on any
liquid; and
(B) on such date such liquid is held by a dealer and has
not been used and is intended for sale;
there shall be credited or refunded (without interest) to the
person who paid such tax (in this subsection referred to as
the ``taxpayer'') an amount equal to the excess of the tax
paid by the taxpayer over the amount of such tax which would
be imposed on such liquid had the taxable event occurred on
such date.
(2) Time for filing claims.--No credit or refund shall be
allowed or made under this subsection unless--
(A) claim therefor is filed with the Secretary of the
Treasury before April 1, 2003; and
(B) in any case where liquid is held by a dealer (other
than the taxpayer) on October 1, 2002--
(i) the dealer submits a request for refund or credit to
the taxpayer before January 1, 2003; and
(ii) the taxpayer has repaid or agreed to repay the amount
so claimed to such dealer or has obtained the written consent
of such dealer to the allowance of the credit or the making
of the refund.
(3) Exception for fuel held in retail stocks.--No credit or
refund shall be allowed under this subsection with respect to
any liquid in retail stocks held at the place where intended
to be sold at retail.
(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the
terms ``dealer'' and ``held by a dealer'' have the respective
meanings given to such terms by section 6412 of such Code;
except that the term ``dealer'' includes a producer.
(5) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules of
subsections (b) and (c) of section 6412 and sections 6206 and
6675 of such Code shall apply for purposes of this
subsection.
SEC. 9. MASS TRANSPORTATION.
(a) In General.--Section 5338 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 5338. Authorizations
``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
of Transportation to carry out this chapter--
``(1) $868,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, of which--
``(A) $304,000,000 shall be used to carry out sections 5307
and 5309;
``(B) $95,000,000 shall be used to carry out section 5311;
and
``(C) the amount remaining after allocation under
subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall be used at the discretion of
the Secretary, including for capital expenditure under this
chapter;
``(2) $889,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, of which--
``(A) $212,000,000 shall be used to carry out sections 5307
and 5309;
``(B) $97,000,000 shall be used to carry out section 5311;
and
``(C) the amount remaining after allocation under
subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall be used at the discretion of
the Secretary, including for capital expenditure under this
chapter;
``(3) $916,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, of which--
``(A) $119,000,000 shall be used to carry out sections 5307
and 5309;
``(B) $100,000,000 shall be used to carry out section 5311;
and
``(C) the amount remaining after allocation under
subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall be used at the discretion of
the Secretary, including for capital expenditure under this
chapter;
``(4) $941,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, of which--
``(A) $27,000,000 shall be used to carry out sections 5307
and 5309;
``(B) $103,000,000 shall be used to carry out section 5311;
and
``(C) the amount remaining after allocation under
subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall be used at the discretion of
the Secretary, including for capital expenditure under this
chapter; and
``(5) $961,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, of which--
``(A) $0 shall be used to carry out sections 5307 and 5309;
``(B) $105,000,000 shall be used to carry out section 5311;
and
``(C) the amount remaining after allocation under
subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall be
[[Page H2023]]
used at the discretion of the Secretary, including for
capital expenditure under this chapter.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
takes effect on October 1, 1998.
SEC. 10. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, after consultation with the appropriate committees of
Congress, the Secretary of Transportation shall submit a
report to Congress describing such technical and conforming
amendments to titles 23 and 49, United States Code, and such
technical and conforming amendments to other laws, as are
necessary to bring those titles and other laws into
conformity with the policy embodied in this Act and the
amendments made by this Act.
SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE CONTINGENT UPON CERTIFICATION OF
DEFICIT NEUTRALITY.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure
that--
(1) this Act will become effective only if the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget certifies that this Act
is deficit neutral;
(2) discretionary spending limits are reduced to capture
the savings realized in devolving transportation functions to
the State level; and
(3) the tax reduction made by this Act is not scored under
pay-as-you-go and thereby inadvertently trigger a
sequestration.
(b) Effective Date Contingency.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, this Act and the amendments made by
this Act shall take effect only if--
(1) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
(referred to in this section as the ``Director'') submits the
report as required in subsection (c); and
(2) the report contains a certification by the Director
that the reduction in discretionary outlays resulting from
the enactment of this Act (assuming appropriation amounts
described in paragraph (2)(B)) is at least as great as the
sum of the net reduction in receipts and direct spending
provided in this Act for each fiscal year through 2003.
(c) OMB Estimates and Report.--
(1) Requirements.--Not later than 7 calendar days
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall--
(A) estimate the net change in receipts and in direct
spending resulting from the enactment of this Act for each
fiscal year through 2003;
(B) estimate the net change in discretionary outlays
resulting from the reduction in budget authority under this
Act for each fiscal year through 2003;
(C) determine, based on those estimates, whether the
reduction in discretionary outlays resulting from the
enactment of this Act (assuming appropriation amounts
described in paragraph (2)(B)) is at least as great as the
sum of the net reduction in receipts and direct spending
provided in this Act for each fiscal year through 2003; and
(D) submit to the Congress a report setting forth the
estimates and determination.
(2) Applicable assumptions and guidelines.--
(A) Revenue and direct spending estimates.--The revenue and
direct spending estimates required under paragraph (1)(A)
shall be predicated on the same economic and technical
assumptions and scorekeeping guidelines that would be used
for estimates made pursuant to section 252(d) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C.
902(d)).
(B) Outlay estimates.--The outlay estimates required under
paragraph (1)(B) shall be determined by comparing the
estimated amounts of discretionary outlays that would flow
from the new budget authority authorized in this Act on the
assumption that subsequent appropriation Acts will provide
amounts consistent with this Act (and that obligation
limitations set forth in such appropriation Acts, if any,
equal the corresponding levels of contract authority provided
in this Act) and the corresponding amounts of discretionary
outlays assumed in House Concurrent Resolution 84 (105th
Congress) and House Report 105-116.
(d) Conforming Adjustment to Discretionary Spending
Limits.--Upon compliance with the requirements specified in
subsection (b), the Director shall adjust the adjusted
discretionary spending limits for each fiscal year under
section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(c)) by the estimated
reductions in discretionary outlays under subsection
(c)(1)(B).
(e) Paygo Interaction.--Upon compliance with the
requirements specified in subsection (b), no changes in
receipts or direct spending estimated to result from the
enactment of this Act shall be counted for the purposes of
section 252(d) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902(d)).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 405, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Well, the first thing I want to do is just point out to the House and
to my colleagues on the floor tonight who may study government, I think
it is very interesting and think even a cause for optimism to recognize
the fact that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and I have
been locked in a titanic struggle now for the course of the last
several years; and I think what we can conclude from this is that it
has been possible for two people to be able to take opposite positions
based firmly on their principles and yet at the same time to be able to
maintain a good relationship and never to make the fight personal.
I hope that in some small way maybe down the road this debate will
serve as somewhat of a model to those that engage at times on this
floor in very heated debates based on very firmly held principles. So I
think this is a very bright day for the House of Representatives from
the standpoint of how, in fact, we conduct our debates.
Let me start and talk to those who are actually watching this now and
let me just start with a quote that was uttered on January 3, 1956.
``If we are to solve our mounting traffic problem, the
whole interstate system must be authorized as one project to
be completed approximately within the specified time of 10
years.
In 1956, those words were uttered by Dwight David Eisenhower. And, in
fact, the legislation that passed the United States Congress authorized
the Interstate Highway System Program for a period of 12 years, to be
ended at the period at the end of 12 years. And, of course, that would
have meant the program would have been ended in 1968. And here we are
going into the next century, and the program still continues.
What I wanted to propose today is what I believe will ultimately
happen in this country. And I must tell my colleagues, I am
disappointed that our Republicans who want to turn power, money, and
influence back to people in local communities and to the States have
not actually adopted this proposal. I call it the turn-back proposal.
What it does, and I do not want anybody back in the offices to be
confused about precisely the way this works, what we would do over the
period of the next 4 years is to wrap up the projects that are
currently under contract and then to begin to block grant money back to
the States, their money back to the States.
At the end of 4 years, we would essentially repeal the entire Federal
gas tax program, except for 3 cents. We would leave 2 cents still
coming to Washington for purposes of maintaining the interstate system,
and we would also leave one additional penny in Washington to help
those States that have unique transportation needs.
At the same time, what we would argue is that we would repeal this
whole Federal program; and we would essentially say to the States, they
tax themselves at the pump, they pave their own roads, they make their
own decisions, and they use their own regulatory authority to decide
how they are going to do things.
In a nutshell, what we are suggesting is rather than the States tax
themselves at the pump and send their money to Washington so that we
can then send it back, what we are suggesting is they never send the
money to Washington in the first place. Because we all know what
happens when we send our money to Washington expecting it to come back.
It never comes back the way we want, and it never comes back in the
amount we want.
So what we are suggesting going into the next century is that they
get to keep their money at home, they get to make their decisions based
on what their transportation needs are, that the Federal Government
will only have the responsibility for maintaining the current
interstate system and helping those States that are in trouble.
And how do they come out? At the end of the day, bingo, 32 States in
America would benefit from this program. If they live in Texas, if they
live in California, if they live in Florida, if they live in Ohio, they
will get to tax themselves, keep their own money, and we will also not
have these onerous Federal regulations that the State Department of
Transportation argues costs as much as 20 percent on each project.
There would be six States that would break even. But that would not
be true, because when we cut the Federal regulations, the States would
be far ahead.
[[Page H2024]]
There would also be 12 States that would have special needs. That is
why we would keep that extra penny in Washington to help those States.
But when we take a view at the United States of America, 38 States
are going to be clear winners under this program. What does that mean
for us?
{time} 2000
It means that we will have more money at home without sending it to
Washington so we can all figure out what is best. We will be able to
tax ourselves to the limit that we want to meet the highway needs that
we have.
At the end of the day, we will not only have more money to spend on
our own roads, but we will not have all the Federal bureaucrats that
sit around day and night trying to figure out all those silly
regulations that drive the cost up of the projects, and we will be
ahead. If we want to look towards the future that is the way it ought
to go.
We had a big debate today. Is a 43 percent increase in highway
funding justified? We had another debate today about these special
projects. We would not have that debate anymore if we just turned the
program back to where we lived.
To my Republican colleagues, we want to turn welfare back to people
where they live. We want to turn education back to where they live. We
wanted to turn public housing back to where they live. You know what, I
think we can turn concrete back to where they live, because they will,
not only have more money, and they will not only be able to pave more
roads, but they will be able to use their own local judgment to decide
what their needs really are.
I would urge my Republican colleagues and many of my Democratic
colleagues to come to the floor and vote for the future. Vote for the
future where we can be in control of our own destiny in so many ways.
This fits the idea that really Washington does not know best. But who
really knows best are the people that get up and go to work and earn a
living and pay the taxes. They ought to be the ones that decide what
our real needs are. We ought not to ask them to send their money here
so when they get it back they are always disappointed. Let us just call
the whole thing off, and let us pass the Kasich amendment.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) is
recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 7\1/2\
minutes be allotted to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and
that he be permitted to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Interestingly enough, while this would simply turn things back to the
States, ironically there is a greater need for us to have a
coordinated, tied-together national transportation system than ever.
Why? Because more people and more goods are moving interstate than ever
before. I think it is important.
I think it is important to recognize that 64 percent of all truck
traffic travels interstate now. I think it is important to recognize,
as I mentioned earlier today, a great example, Oklahoma City, where two
interstates intersect, 60 percent of the license plates are out of
State license plates.
Indeed, there is a greater need to have this tied together than ever
before. Our bill not only does that, but it also gives flexibilities to
the States and the cities by saying that 50 percent of the funding in
each category can be flexibly moved about to other categories.
Beyond that, understand, this amendment keeps the 4.3 cents here in
Washington and does not spend it. So we are back to the same old game,
the shell game of taxing the American people for gas taxes; and, yet,
keeping that money here and not spending it.
Beyond that, this amendment has not been scored by the Congressional
Budget Office. This amendment exempts the pay-go provisions of the bill
for which we have been criticized.
So for all of these reasons, it is very important that we reject this
amendment. It is very important, also, to recognize that, of the money
that comes to Washington now, only 1 percent stays here down at the
Department of Transportation for administrative purposes, 88 percent
goes back to the States to be spent, 5 percent goes to the Secretary of
Transportation to be sent back to the States for high cost
discretionary projects, 5 percent goes back to the States through the
congressional projects, and only 1 percent stays in Washington.
Further, State regulations, which in many cases are as onerous, if
not more onerous, than Federal regulations, would obviously stay in
place. Indeed, we have no assurance whatsoever that, if we turn this
back to the States, that the States would pass and increase their gas
taxes.
Indeed, I am told that, on the average, each State would have to pass
the State gas tax increasing it by 15 cents per gallon. So what
assurance do we have? No, this is simply destroying what must be a
national program which is to tie our country together from a
transportation point of view. For those reasons, I say we should defeat
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, let us make no mistake about it. Under this proposal,
first of all, it is deficit-neutral. Secondly, for those who have been
struggling to repeal the 4.3 cent gas tax, we would take that to the
Committee on Ways and Means and, in fact, repeal the 4.3 cents. Make no
mistake about it.
In addition to it, let me just suggest one thing. I believe our
Governors of our States are actually capable of being able to
coordinate the transportation needs of our Nation. We believe that they
can do this as Republicans and conservatives for a whole variety of
functions. We absolutely believe they can get it right in highways. In
fact, if we pass this amendment, they will have more money and less
Federal regulations in order to get the job done.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Salmon).
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I have got a news flash for the American
people, and that is the American two-party system we have loved for so
long. It is clear with today's goings on it is dead and gone.
The Republicans and the Democrats have been replaced by one big
mammoth party called the ``republicrats'', and they have one interest,
and that is business as usual.
My support for the Kasich amendment is typified by this story. It
appears there was a young boy who wrote a letter to God asking for $10
because he wanted to buy something. The post office did not know where
else to send it, so they sent it to the White House.
The President got a kick out of that. He put a dollar in the mail
back to the boy. The boy quickly wrote another letter back to God. He
said, God, thank you so much for the money that you sent me, but it
went by way of Washington, D.C., and they took out $9 and only gave me
$1. Could you please send it to me directly next time?
I think that is what we are after. We just want to make sure that the
money stays in the States, and we cut out the Federal middleman, and
all of the money goes to transportation, the needs appropriated by the
citizens of the States we live in.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to simply make
the point that this amendment does not repeal the 4.3 cents. It keeps
that money here in Washington. Secondly, all 50 Governors support our
bill. Those are facts.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire what the distribution of
time is at this point.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 7\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Surface Transportation.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota, the
ranking member, for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker had just spoken of the formation
of two
[[Page H2025]]
parties today. He said ``republicrats'', I believe is what he called
those of us working for the future of America by these investments we
are making today. I would suggest perhaps the other party that he did
not refer to should be called the ``RWWK'', the ``right wing whacko
kids'' for some of the philosophy they have been espousing here today.
I commend the gentleman from Ohio for his tenacity. I do not agree
with his amendment, but certainly his tenacity is to be commended. He
has testified before our committee before. This is not his first time
of putting this proposal forward.
I would also note that I have been waiting for this day for a long,
long time. I want to see a rollcall vote taken on the gentleman from
Ohio's amendment, because I think we need to clear once and for all
where things stand on this particular issue.
This amendment is, indeed, a thinly veiled attempt to turn back
almost all highway responsibilities to our States, to devolve the
Federal responsibility. So it just pertains to interstates and roads
within our national parks, our public lands, and Indian reservations.
That is it. There would be no other Federal highway-related
responsibilities.
Under the gentleman's amendment, to accomplish this goal, the Federal
motor fuels tax would be reduced to a little more than 7 cents per
gallon and ultimately phased down to 3 cents a gallon.
The obvious problem with his approach is that it does nothing, it
does nothing to address the existing shortfall and spending to address
our deficient highway infrastructure. In fact, it would worsen that
shortfall.
Considering the 18.3 cents per gallon Federal gas tax that is
reserved for transportation investments, that is simply to maintain our
status quo. Simply to maintain that status quo, many States are going
to have to then increase their State gasoline taxes by at least 15
cents per gallon under this turn-back proposal, devolution, States opt
out, or whatever description they want to give it.
If my colleagues believe that the majority of our State Governors in
their legislative bodies are prepared to take this type of action of
increasing their State gasoline taxes to make up for this shortfall, if
we believe State Governors and legislators are going to do that, then
welcome to la-la land.
There are numerous other problems with this approach as well. The
fundamental problem, however, is that it simply throws crumbs at our
crumbling infrastructure. That is all this approach does.
There is a Federal responsibility, in my opinion, a pressing need on
the Federal level to improve our roads, highways, and bridges. It goes
to more than just our interstate system.
Every day our people cross State lines on a noninterstate highway or
roadway. These principal arterial routes, along with our interstates,
are part of the national highway system. Interstates play only a small
part of that national highway system we designated in 1995. I urge that
we continue this Federal responsibility to maintaining our interstates
and national highway systems. Vote no on this amendment.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, everything that was just said makes a great deal of
sense provided that we stipulate that the Federal Government is the
low-cost provider, that the most efficient way to get the most roads,
the most bridges, and the most transportation is to send the money to
Washington first where the freight charges can be deducted or where it
can be run through the bureaucracy here and then shipped pack to the
States.
If we think that Washington is the best way to do it, getting the
Washington bureaucracy involved is the most efficient way to do it,
then, by all means, keep sending our gas taxes to Washington, D.C.,
even after the Interstate Highway Program was all finished, which it
was in 1991.
If we think the Washington bureaucracy is the low-cost provider,
then, by all means, vote for the status quo. If we think Washington
knows best, send all our money back here. But if we want more
transportation, more highways, more bridges, more infrastructure, more
transit, then take the full dollar of gas tax and spend it at home.
This program guarantees us a full 90 percent of what we send to
Washington. It is time to get 100 percent. That is what this amendment
will do.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, since the founding of this Republic,
the Federal Government has been integrally involved with developing an
infrastructure system: railroads, freeways, airports, ports, and inland
waterways. And it has provided us a national system that has made this
country great. But today, it is fraying at the edges.
This proposal, the turn-back proposal, I think is appropriately
named, because just when we are on the verge of getting it right under
the ISTEA formula, we would be turning back to States that have varied,
highly restricted constitutional provisions on how they can spend the
money. They would be turning their back on many of the environmental
priorities, transit priorities, and the strong national system that we
have for bicycles. We would be turning our back on many of these areas.
Onerous Federal regulations that the gentleman from Ohio refers to
strikes me as somewhat humorous. I am not running for President, but I
have been in 30 American communities over the last year talking about
ISTEA and transportation. I tell my colleagues to a certainty, in
community after community, it was the ISTEA structure that enabled for
the first time cities and regions to have a voice that were ignored by
State transportation commissions in State after State.
This is not a vote for the future. It is a turning our back on the
partnerships that can make America great.
{time} 2015
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I have always liked righteous indignation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me. I rise in support of the Kasich substitute. Frankly, I am
disappointed today that we see before us a bill that so fundamentally,
so clearly violates the principles of fiscal responsibility, flies in
the face of the balanced budget agreement that so many of us in this
body worked so hard to achieve. Should we not be concerned about the
fact that we are going to be spending $33 billion more than the
balanced budget agreement? That is $33 billion more.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is hypocritical for this Congress to brag
about its historic balanced budget agreement on the one hand and then
move to trash that agreement. There is no way that I think any of us
here can justify this shameful exercise in fiscal irresponsibility.
Now I know the legislation says that there is going to be offsets to
it, but do we not have a responsibility to first determine where those
offsets ought to come from, where we are going to get the money to
spend for this, before we go about authorizing it? Are we going to take
it out of defense? Are we going to take it out of programs in law
enforcement? Tax relief for American citizens? War on drugs? Where are
we going to take it from?
I think we should think about those things before we pass this
legislation.
Congress has an established process for appropriating money. The
authorizing committee approves the spending, the Committee on
Appropriations appropriates the money. That is a frequently contentious
process, but it is a democratic process and we ought to keep it.
Vote ``aye'' on this amendment.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I have the highest regard for the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget, who will make a great President of the United
States one day, but I am going to tell my colleagues his amendment
predicts that there is no politics played in the local
[[Page H2026]]
level in the State of Ohio or any other State. I can point the
gentleman to half a billion dollars of road projects within spitting
distance of the State capital that we share in Columbus, Ohio. I can
also point the gentleman to roads in my area of the State where for 26
years there have been promises made, where young people die every day
and improvements never come.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment takes the decision out of the
hands of 435 Members of this House who are elected by 600,000 people
and gives it to 50 men and women across this country who are elected by
millions. H.R. 2400, BESTEA, makes sure that local decision-making is
preserved. Ohio receives $300 million more per year than it received
under ISTEA. This bill is a good bill, and it needs to be passed.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale).
Mr. McHALE. Mr. Chairman I oppose the ``turn your back'' amendment.
The Kasich amendment would lower the gasoline tax by virtually
eliminating Federal support for our Nation's highways.
Last week my wife Kathy bought a gallon of gasoline in my district
for 99 cents. We may have among the cheaper gasoline in the Western
World. Mr. Chairman, we do not need cheaper gas, we need better safer
highways.
A few minutes ago my friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) attacked the proposed redevelopment of the
industrial waterfront in Allentown, Pennsylvania. The gentleman from
Oklahoma has never visited the site; I live 2 miles away. The gentleman
from Oklahoma has never spoken to the low-income families who live in
the area; I have many times.
The ISTEA funding in this bill will provide roads and access ramps to
reclaim and restore a brownfield site located in the heart of one of
Pennsylvania's largest cities. There could be, I pledge to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) and others, there could be no
more honorable investment of public funds.
What a meaningless victory if we preserve the budget but abandon our
cities. What a callous misjudgment if we protect our wallets but
abandon our people.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Kasich amendment.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith) one of my cosponsors.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the first question it seems like
we should ask ourselves: How do we most efficiently and most
effectively get bridges and roads repaired in this country? One problem
with the money coming to Washington and then going back to the States
is there is too many strings attached when it goes back to the States.
Gabriel Roth, in his book ``Roads in a Market Economy,'' estimates
that the Federal regulations that go back with that money increase the
cost of roads and bridges by 50 percent. Other road economists estimate
that it is 40 percent. Talking about politics played, we use this money
as blackmail. We say to States, ``Unless you do things our way, we're
not going to give you the road money. Unless you do your environmental
regulations our way, you don't get your road money.''
If we want to get rid of the politics, if we want to have more
efficient construction and utilization to build a road and bridge
system in this country that is badly in need of repair, then let us let
the money stay in the States in the first place instead of running it
through the Washington bureaucracy.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 2\1/
2\ minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I am just delighted that the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the author of this amendment, was not in the
Eisenhower Cabinet or in the Bureau of Roads, as it was known in those
days, because goodness knows we would never have had a Highway Trust
Fund, we would have never had an interstate highway program; he would
have just let the States go on and fumble as they had been doing. He
would take us back to a time that none of us here could possibly
imagine, a time when some States started roads, others did not, they
built it up to a certain point and then it stopped. Bridges were
started and then stopped.
If we follow the gentleman's logic all the way through, we would have
bridges that go halfway across a river because one State would want to
build it and the other State would not or would run out of money, or we
would have roads that go up to a State's border and the other State
would say, ``Well, we don't think we want to build a road there.''
I mean, he would have us in chaos, he would have us back in 14th
century England when the rule was that the owner of a castle had to
repair the road in front of their castle so that the carriages riding
along would not be stuck in the potholes, and if they did, then they
had to pull them out. He would set us back, not forward.
This is a vote for the past, not a vote for the future. This is a
vote for a chimerical view of transportation in America, one that
exists solely in the mind of its author but does not exist in reality.
If we are going to be a Nation, and if my colleagues believe in the
Constitution that said a responsibility of the Congress shall be to
build post roads, that it shall have authority over interstate and
foreign commerce, then it is our duty to promote interstate and foreign
commerce, and the way to do it is through transportation, and we do
that.
This legislation that we bring to the floor today continues the
greatest movement of, mobility of people and goods, the greatest thrust
for economic growth that this country or any country has undertaken.
Our transportation network has given America the thrust to be a world
power.
Let us not retreat to the past. Let us vote for the future, for
BESTEA, and vote down the Kasich amendment.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, a donor State is better off under Kasich. If
my colleagues believe that States can do some things better than the
Federal Government, vote for Kasich. If my colleagues want highways off
budget, let us really take them off budget, keep the dollars at home
and vote for Kasich.
There is or there should be a Federal role in the highway area, but
this bill is so incredibly irresponsible. Forty-four percent over the
last bill, $40 million over the budget; it demonstrates this Congress
has lost all manner of self-control on this issue and does not deserve
to have its hands on the dollars in this bill.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania said a moment ago, oh, this amendment
is not scored. I could not help but laugh. Give me a break. This bill
has been scored, and it is a $40 billion budget buster.
We are told 50 Governors support the bill. What Governor do we not
see in this posture, with his hand out half the time? We had 40 of
those Governors last year tell us to pass the same budget that now they
are telling us to bust. That is ridiculous.
Last year when we passed the welfare reform bill we told people that
there was no longer any need to keep Federal standards under how we
took care of poor people. If that is the case, there is certainly no
need to maintain Federal standards on concrete.
Vote for the Kasich amendment. It gets us out of the most
irresponsible mess I have seen in this Congress in at least a week.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me, and I would just like to make a few points.
The Kasich amendment, hearing some of the people describe it, sounds
like a pretty good idea: Keep the money in the States where it is
generated and where it can be spent most efficiently, instead of
sending it out to Washington and having all sorts of red tape added and
then sending it back so we do not get as much investment for our
infrastructure as we pay for.
Is that what the Kasich amendment does? No. Last time I checked, what
was the Federal gas tax? 18.4 cents. How much does the Kasich amendment
send back? 18.4 cents? No, 11 cents. What happens to the rest? Stays in
[[Page H2027]]
Washington, at least a lot of it, and is spent on other things.
So in my State, in Wisconsin, what is being said? This is saying we
want to increase taxes at the State level because we will give them in
Washington 11 cents, and in order to maintain the transportation
investment in their infrastructure they will have to raise their gas
taxes how much? 11 cents? No, 15 cents.
As my colleagues know, the Governors and a lot of experts watching
what is happening in our national Federal system have been pointing out
that people in Washington cut back on spending and it has to be picked
up at the State and local level and higher taxes at the State and local
level, and then we pat ourselves on the back for supposedly cutting
burdens when all we are doing is shifting it to the State and local
level.
The Governors have been criticized here on this floor, but I think
they are elected too and are due our respect. They were out here just a
few weeks ago pointing out that over the last 20 years the Federal
percentage of investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure
have been gradually declining. We have been talking pretty big out
here, but we have been transferring the budget responsibility, the need
for raising the revenue to maintain our roads and bridges in the United
States, from Washington back to the State and local units of
government. This would radically accelerate that, and it would
basically shortchange every State in the United States by about 4
cents.
Please vote ``no.''
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Paul).
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me. I rise in strong support of this amendment.
I would like to remind my colleagues that in the 1950s when the
Federal highway program started it was recognized that it was an
improper function of the Federal Government. Therefore the Congress
back then, they were still recognizing that the Constitution had some
effect as well as the President; they had to come up for a reason for
the highway projects, so they did it under national defense.
Of course today we do not debate that issue in that light, but I
think we see the results of doing something that was not proper. Today
it is very expensive, it is very bureaucratic, and we have seen tonight
in the debate how it has become politicized.
So if we are looking for a fair way to build highways, a more
efficient way to build highways, I think this is the answer. This is
not going backwards, this is going forward. This would be the first
time we could have a national highway system really controlled by the
States where it is supposed to be. The States would have more money,
not less money. They would have less regulation, not more regulation.
This is much better than block grants. This is returning
responsibility to the States. I compliment the gentleman for bringing
this to the floor.
{time} 2030
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will advise Members that the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining and the right
to close.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Brookhaven, Mississippi (Mr. Parker).
Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kasich amendment. Tim
Penny, I saw him yesterday, and Tim made a statement to me which I find
fascinating. He said he felt he owed an apology to some of the liberal
Democratic chairmen for some of the bills that they had written. He
thought there was a lot of pork in them, and he found out that, no,
that was not really right; that this particular bill that has been
brought forth puts the rest of them to shame. And I agree.
Now, if you think this bill is going to become law as it is, it is
not. The Senate is not going to pass this bill, and I pray to God that
the President of the United States vetoes it.
The interesting thing is this: Can you imagine the depths that we
have sunk to when we have to depend on the other body and the President
of the United States to show fiscal responsibility?
I predict that this vote will be one of the worst votes, if you vote
for this bill, of any vote you have ever cast, if you are a
conservative, a fiscal conservative and believe in fiscal
responsibility. You will rue the day you voted for this.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, let me just make it clear: What we want to do is keep 3
cents in Washington to maintain the current interstate system. If you
come from Montana, where you are losing in this bill, we are going to
keep a penny here to help you and the other heavy transit States. We
are going to repeal the 4.3 cents enacted in 1993 that every Republican
voted against, and we are going to get rid of the rest of the gas tax
and let the States levy their own taxes and manage their own roads with
their own regulations.
I do not think that we are going to have any halfway built bridges
that are going to end in the middle of a river. I think people are
smarter than that. I know this, they are a lot smarter at home than
they are right here in Washington.
Vote for the Kasich amendment.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we hear about turning back to the States, but all 50
State Governors support BESTEA, not the amendments in front of us.
Indeed, I have a letter from Governor Whitman of New Jersey in which
she says turn back what hurt our State's ability to move people and
goods throughout the Northeast corridor. That is the way it is across
America. Why? Because more people are traveling interstate than ever
before.
And do not be fooled by this pig in a poke. This does not turn back
the 4.3 cents. This does not rescind the 4.3 cents. This amendment does
nothing but keep the 4.3 cents, which amounts to about $6.5 billion a
year, here in Washington, not to be spent on highways, but to be spent
to mask and disguise the same old Ponzi scheme of using this money
rather than building highways in America.
Indeed, my good friend from Ohio talks about the regulations here.
Only 1 percent of the money stays in Washington for the Department of
Transportation. But we Republicans control the Congress. If we want to
change the regulations, then let us do it. And, indeed, we hope that we
will control the White House a few years from now, and indeed it may
well be the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget, who will be the next President of the United
States. And if he is the next President of the United States, I will
join with him in changing these regulations.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 405, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) will
be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 405, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order:
Amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham); Amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt); and Amendment No. 6 offered by the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kasich).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series of votes.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Graham
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the vote on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
[[Page H2028]]
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 79,
noes 337, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 95]
AYES--79
Archer
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Boehner
Bonilla
Burr
Campbell
Castle
Chabot
Christensen
Coburn
Condit
Cox
Cubin
Deal
Deutsch
Edwards
Ehrlich
Foley
Frelinghuysen
Goss
Graham
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hayworth
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kolbe
Largent
Leach
Lewis (GA)
McCollum
Miller (FL)
Minge
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Pappas
Parker
Pomeroy
Porter
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Skaggs
Smith (MI)
Souder
Stenholm
Stump
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Wamp
Wexler
White
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--337
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Barcia
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2
Lofgren
McCrery
NOT VOTING--12
Cannon
Gonzalez
Jefferson
Klug
McIntosh
Payne
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Torres
Waters
Yates
{time} 2059
Messrs. BURTON of Indiana, TAYLOR of Mississippi, MEEHAN, and BRADY
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. Deutsch changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 405, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
Amendment No. 5 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Spratt
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 106,
noes 312, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 96]
AYES--106
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Boehner
Bonilla
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Burr
Campbell
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Christensen
Clayton
Coburn
Condit
Cox
Crane
Davis (FL)
Deal
Deutsch
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fazio
Gillmor
Graham
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hill
Hobson
Hoyer
Inglis
Jones
Kasich
Kennedy (RI)
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kolbe
LaFalce
Largent
Lewis (GA)
Livingston
Lofgren
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Obey
Parker
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Roemer
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Scott
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Sununu
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thornberry
Thurman
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wolf
NOES--312
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Barcia
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Capps
Carson
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Dixon
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
[[Page H2029]]
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogers
Rothman
Roukema
Rush
Ryun
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Spence
Stabenow
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
McCrery
NOT VOTING--11
Cannon
Gonzalez
Jefferson
Klug
Payne
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Torres
Waters
Yates
{time} 2110
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts and Mr. DAVIS of Illinois changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BERMAN and Mr. STARK changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 6 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Kasich
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment in the nature of the
substitute.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 98,
noes 318, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 97]
AYES--98
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Boehner
Bonilla
Boyd
Brady
Brown (OH)
Burr
Campbell
Canady
Chabot
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coburn
Condit
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Dooley
Dreier
Foley
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kolbe
Largent
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
McCollum
McIntosh
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Neumann
Obey
Packard
Parker
Paul
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sisisky
Smith (MI)
Souder
Stark
Stenholm
Stump
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thurman
Wamp
Watkins
Wexler
White
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--318
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cubin
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodling
Gordon
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2
Lofgren
McCrery
NOT VOTING--12
Cannon
Gonzalez
Jefferson
Klug
McCarthy (NY)
Payne
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Torres
Waters
Yates
{time} 2118
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to proceed out of order
for 1 minute.)
Expressions of Appreciation
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I take this moment to express my deep
appreciation to the staff on the Democratic side, David Heymsfeld,
Sante Esposito, Ken House, Rosalyn Millman,
[[Page H2030]]
Ward McCarragher, Jim Zoia, Steve Dubois, and to Jack Schenendorf,
staff director on the Republican side, for the splendid cooperation and
the many hard hours of work that they have devoted to this legislation.
And to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), Mr. Chairman, I
would simply like to say that his 26 years of service in this body have
been unfailingly devoted to advancing the cause of transportation, its
safety, mobility, its economic growth and its impact on America. Some
of our colleagues serving in this body are fortunate enough to get an
amendment adopted. A rare few get a bill enacted into law. But a rare
trailblazer makes an impact on the Nation that will outlive his service
in this body.
Yours is that monumental service. The bill we are about to adopt by,
I am confident, an overwhelming vote will be an everlasting tribute to
the years of professional service you have given to the people of
America and to the cause of transportation.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Snowbarger) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington,
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. 2400) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety
programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, pursuant to
House Resolution 405, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is 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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 337,
noes 80, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 98]
AYES--337
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Barcia
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Capps
Carson
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hefner
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--80
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bentsen
Boehner
Bonilla
Brown (OH)
Burr
Campbell
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Christensen
Coburn
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Davis (FL)
Deal
Deutsch
Dooley
Edwards
Fazio
Goss
Graham
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kolbe
LaFalce
Largent
Lewis (GA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Obey
Parker
Paul
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Radanovich
Rohrabacher
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Skaggs
Smith, Adam
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stump
Thornberry
Wexler
White
Wolf
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3
Hefley
Lofgren
McCrery
NOT VOTING--10
Cannon
Gonzalez
Jefferson
Klug
Payne
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Waters
Yates
{time} 2144
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for, with Mr. Yates against.
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
____________________