[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 67 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3945-H3965]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2400, TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST 
                                CENTURY

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the House Resolution 449, I 
call up the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2400), to 
authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and 
transit programs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 449, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.

[[Page H3946]]

  (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the 
House of today.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, under the assumption that the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is in favor of the conference report, I rise 
in opposition to the conference report and pursuant to rule XXXVIII, I 
request one-third of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is the 
gentleman from Minnesota opposed to the bill?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. No, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) will control one-third of the time, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) will control one-third of the time, and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) will control one-third of the 
time.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Henry Clay, the great compromiser, once said the good 
thing about compromise is that for everything you give up, you get 
something in return. And, indeed, that is where we are today.
  We bring back from our conference with the Senate a compromise. Now, 
if I could waive a magic wand, there are several things in this bill I 
would do differently. So we do bring a compromise to the floor, but it 
is a good compromise. It is more than a good compromise, Mr. Speaker. 
It is an historic piece of legislation. It is an historic piece of 
legislation because we put the trust back in the transportation trust 
funds.
  This is an historic piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, because now 
the American people will know that trust is being put back in the 
transportation trust fund. The revenue they pay, the gas tax which they 
pay into the transportation trust fund, will be available to be spent 
on transportation purposes. Indeed, while I and many others in this 
Chamber would have preferred to take the trust funds off budget, the 
compromise we reached is a good one, it is a solid one, it is a 
guarantee, an ironclad guarantee, that sets aside firewalls on the 
revenue coming into the transportation trust fund so that that money is 
available to be spent.
  So when the average American drives up to the gas pump and pays his 
18.3-cent Federal tax, that money is free to be spent. It is a 
guarantee, it is an ironclad guarantee. This is an historic matter in 
and of itself, and that is one of the major reasons why this 
legislation is so important to America.
  What it means, if we do spend the revenue going into the trust fund, 
and not a penny more, only the revenue going into the trust fund, means 
that this bill over six years can guarantee $200,500,000,000 spending, 
because that is the revenue projected to go into the trust fund.
  Should there be more revenue going into the trust fund, that money 
will be available to be spent. Should there be less revenue going into 
the trust fund, then we will have to reduce the expenditures. It is 
fair, it is equitable, and it is keeping faith with the American 
people.
  This legislation is going to save, the experts tell me, approximately 
4,000 lives a year, not only because of the safety provisions we have 
in it, but because about 30 percent of our 42,000 highway fatalities 
each year are caused as a result of bad roads. As we improve the roads, 
we save lives.
  Another very significant feature to this legislation is that the 
donor States will now get 90.5 percent minimum allocation guaranteed on 
the formulas. This is better than the guarantee in either the Senate or 
the House bill.
  Also, we have streamlining provisions in here which make it more easy 
for the States to proceed giving the various groups their opportunity 
to express themselves, but to get highways and transit systems built 
more expeditiously so we can gain the increased productivity, 
convenience and safety that goes with it.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to emphasize that just a few minutes 
ago the Senate passed this conference report by a vote of 88 to 5, and 
this afternoon the President of the United States said, ``I will be 
pleased to sign it into law.''
  So we bring to Members now T-21, the Transportation Equity Act for 
the 21st Century, and urge its passage.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report.
  I rise today in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 2400, 
the TEA-21 Act, which addresses a number of important environmental and 
safety issues that were committed to the attention of the Committee on 
Commerce.
  As requested by the States, the conference report provides certainty 
regarding EPA's schedule for implementing the new ozone and PM air 
standards. The conference report also ensures that EPA will keep its 
promise to harmonize the schedule of its regional haze program and its 
promise to pay for PM monitors. To ensure that EPA uses the best 
science possible, the conference report directs the EPA Administrator 
to consider recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences.
  These provisions enjoyed wide support from the States and others, and 
I ask unanimous consent to include in the record three letters of 
support.
  The conference report also includes many of the provisions contained 
in H.R. 2691, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
Reauthorization Act of 1998, which passed the House unanimously last 
month. In addition to reauthorizing NHTSA, it addresses the important 
issue of air bag safety and improves the protection of drivers, 
passengers, and children who are involved in motor vehicle crashes. 
These provisions will ultimately save lives.
  The conference report also addresses the issue of NHTSA lobbying. We 
agreed on a bipartisan basis to prohibit NHTSA from lobbying State and 
local officials, just as they are prohibited from lobbying Members of 
Congress.
  In closing, I would like to recognize the extraordinary effort that 
it took to bring this legislation to the floor today. Chairman 
Bilirakis, Chairman, Tauzin, and Ranking Member Dingell all worked very 
hard and on a bipartisan basis. I would also like to thank Chairman 
Shuster and Chairman Petri, as well as Ranking Members Oberstar and 
Rahall, for the high level of cooperation we received from the 
Transportation Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill that we are pleased to bring to the House today 
is strong on mobility, strong on safety, strong on economic 
development. It sustains the economic expansion that our country is 
experiencing. It gives us thrust to continue the international 
competitiveness of the nation's economy. It is a balanced bill. It is 
strong on transportation, including all modes of transportation, 
transit, alternative transportation. It protects the environment, 
enhances safety, ensures fair treatment for construction and transit 
workers, for pedestrians, for bicyclists, for disadvantaged 
contractors, for people trying to end their dependence on welfare 
through the welfare to work provisions. Most importantly, it restores 
trust, the trust of the American people, to the Highway Trust Fund. It, 
with the guarantee provision we have included in this legislation, 
assures that we achieve in principle the goal we have sought in 
practice for so long, to take the trust fund off budget, but within the 
budget.
  This is no small accomplishment. We have been working since 1968, for 
30 years, to bring the Highway Trust Fund back to the position where 
the revenues in are the revenues spent out and invested in the Nation's 
transportation needs.
  For the leadership that brought us to this point, I salute the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster). I like the name of the 
bill that passed the House, BESTEA, the Bud E. Shuster Transportation 
for All Eternity Act. And I salute my chairman for the leadership he 
has given us for the strong role that he played in the conference, and 
bringing back to this body

[[Page H3947]]

an extraordinarily proud piece of legislation.
  We have much to be proud of with this legislation. All of the points 
that I mentioned a moment ago can be expanded upon, but I think we can 
sum it up best with what the President said just moments ago. ``Let me 
say, this bill does show that fiscal responsibility and investing in 
our future go hand-in-hand toward preparing our people and our country 
for the next century. I want to thank Secretary Slater, Larry Stein, 
especially the Members of the economic team, for the hard work they did 
starting from a very difficult position to reduce the spending in this 
bill. If the Congress does in fact pass the bill as expected, I will be 
pleased to sign it into law.''
  We would have liked a higher spending level. We would have liked many 
other provisions in this bill as we passed it in the House. But we 
bring back to you something that every Member of this body can take 
home to his or her district and stand up and be proud of and tell the 
American people we have done good as we approach the 21st Century, that 
that bridge to the 21st Century will not be a chimerical bridge, but it 
will be a bridge built on steel girders and concrete and asphalt and 
will take America into the 21st Century.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). He is, 
without question, I think one of the most effective chairs in this 
House, and he certainly knows how to run a railroad.
  I also have considerable respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Petri), the subcommittee chair for surface transportation. As far 
as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is concerned, my friend 
from the wrong side of the bridge in Minnesota, he and I vote against 
each other about, I think we voted against each other more in the past 
week on this issue than we have in all of the time we have been here. I 
have great respect and affection for him. But I stand here today 
because I believe it is important to recognize that there are certain 
principles which are being grossly violated by this bill that should 
not be violated.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota just said that there is 
something in this bill that every Member can take back home to their 
districts. That is certainly, certainly true. There are some 1,800 
projects in this bill. To put that into perspective, in the entire 
history of the highway program, we have only had 1,022 projects for 
Members. In this bill, in one year, there will be 1,800. That is the 
most spectacular example of excess that I can recall.
  There is even in this bill a $120 million authorization for a highway 
in Canada. Now, I know a lot of citizens in a lot of States who would 
prefer that those dollars be spent in their own States. I did not know 
that Canada had become attached as another State, but evidently, 
despite that, we are going to spend money there any way.
  The main reason to oppose this bill is that it is simply a budget 
buster. As I understand it, it is $32 billion over the CBO baseline 
over 6 years, and as a consequence of that, to find ways to pay for 
that excess, the committee has taken, we are told, about $15 billion 
out of the hides of veterans' health care perhaps. They have also taken 
out $2 billion out of the title XX block grant. That is the program 
which pays for child care, for child protective services, for foster 
care, for home base services for the elderly, for services for at risk 
youth, for Meals on Wheels for the home bound. $2 billion coming out of 
that over three years. And then the bill says that for every year 
thereafter, there will be a continued reduction in that program.
  I do not believe that home bound senior citizens expect us to build 
highways by running over their needs, and I do not believe that 
veterans think we should do so either.
  I have two letters which I read earlier and I will read again a 
portion of them. The Paralyzed Veterans Association of America says as 
follows: ``It has been purported that veterans have now agreed to the 
offsets due to the inclusion of certain increases in other benefits. 
This is patently untrue. The conferees should reconsider their actions 
in using veterans funds as offsets to pay for transportation and 
highway projects that far exceed the levels established in last year's 
budget agreement.''

                              {time}  1700

  The Disabled American Veterans urge a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question on this bill because of their objections to the veterans' 
cuts.
  It just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that while highways certainly 
deserve to be a top priority, they do not deserve to be the only 
priority, and we should not be funding concrete in another country. 
Certainly, we should not be paying for 1,800 special congressional 
projects by taking it out of the hides of veterans' health care and 
title 20 block grant, which is needed by our most needy and defenseless 
citizens.
  So that is why I will be offering, if I have the opportunity at the 
end of the bill, I will be offering a motion to recommit to at least 
eliminate the cuts for veterans that are used to finance a portion of 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I salute the Chairman's leadership in this 
matter.
  Mr. Speaker, the true social safety net of this country is not made 
up of speeches delivered in this hall or even legislation passed in 
this hall. The true social safety net of this country is the productive 
capacity of the American people and the American economy. Passage of 
this legislation will enhance that productivity that will improve, 
thereby, the social safety net and the well-being of all Americans.
  I would join my colleagues in supporting this legislation that is 
backed by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National 
Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the 
American Public Transit Association and the Representatives of 
America's Motorists, the AAA, the Senate of the United States by an 88-
to-5 vote, and the President of the United States, who suggested the 
offsets that some of my colleagues deplore. But it has his support. It 
should from my colleagues. It is a good bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure.
  This bill provides the vital funds necessary to rebuild Michigan's 
crumbling roads, bridges, and interstates, and I congratulate and thank 
Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar for their work.
  This legislation also includes provisions within the sole 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. They address important 
public health and safety matters, and do so in a manner that is fully 
bipartisan. I want to commend and thank Chairman Bliley, Mr. Tauzin, 
and Mr. Bilirakis for their efforts on these issues.
  H.R. 2400 contains provisions reauthorizing the activities of the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The legislation 
contains the funding level requested by the Administration, and does 
two other important things.
  One, it establishes a rulemaking for the next generation of motor 
vehicle occupant protection systems. This is designed to address the 
tragic problems we've seen with the current generation of airbags.
  Second, the legislation corrects some flaws and anomalies in the 
formula used for calculating the domestic parts content of motor 
vehicles. This provision will give consumers more accurate information 
about the origin of their vehicles.
  H.R. 2400 contains one other provision of special note. It will give 
States and communities certainty regarding the implementation of the 
new national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate 
matter.
  These legislative provisions do not change Administration policy, nor 
do they address fundamental questions regarding these standards and 
their impact. They simply ensure that the Administration's schedule for 
these standards is met and that the necessary monitoring data will be 
gathered expeditiously without imposing any financial burden on the 
States.
  In addition, we included language in the Statement of Managers to 
ensure that Administrator Browner carefully considers the recent 
recommendations of the National Research

[[Page H3948]]

Council regarding the national fine particle monitoring network which 
will be developed and deployed over the next two years.
  This group of independent scientists urged EPA to ensure that the 
plans for this monitoring program are thoroughly peer-reviewed at an 
early date, while such a review can still inform the monitoring-network 
design and operation. The Statement of Managers endorses this 
reasonable and prudent step and I fully expect EPA to take the 
necessary steps to ensure that all aspects of the development of this 
monitoring network are in fact subject to peer review.
  Beside making several minor technical changes, the Conferees made 
only one significant change to the original Inhofe Amendment as passed 
by the Senate. And that was to address an issue raised but not resolved 
by the Senate provision. Section 4102 not only calls for the 
establishment of a national network of fine particle monitors, it 
provides that areas will not be designated as nonattainment until 
States have the opportunity to review three years of data from these 
monitors. This guarantee was established by the President and adopted 
by EPA last summer. State submissions of programs to control fine 
particles are also delayed since they are triggered by the 
nonattainment designation process.
  However, EPA's proposed regional haze program could short-circuit 
this timing by requiring States to make decisions regarding the control 
of fine particles before the necessary technical information from the 
monitoring network is available. Why? Well, as Administrator Browner 
has testified: ``Like the new ambient air quality standards for fine 
particulates, the proposed rule for regional haze would similarly 
require the control of fine particulates.'' So since the two programs 
control the same pollutant and rest on the same technical information, 
even EPA has recognized that the two programs must be harmonized. To 
again quote Administrator Browner, ``it is our intention to manage the 
two together'' and ``not to have regional haze go first, but to 
actually combine them.'' These comments have been echoed by the 
Administrator and other EPA officials in other forums and in the 
Agency's official writings.
  However, there is a statutory glitch in EPA's efforts to harmonize 
the two programs. A provision in the Clean Air Act's visibility section 
requires State plans within one year after the visibility regulations 
are final. To address this statutory deadline, the Conferees added 
language to guarantee that the State submissions on regional haze will 
coincide with the State's fine particle submissions. As such, the 
provision implements EPA's stated policy regarding the timing issue.
  (I would add that the provision is not intended to endorse or ratify 
EPA's proposed regional haze program and the Conferees took no position 
on the legality or prudence of any portion of the proposed 
regulations.)
  Mr. Speaker, the Inhofe Amendment as modified by the Conferees 
represents a modest initial step to deal with the many issues raised by 
EPA's new air quality standards. I must promise with regret that this 
will not be the last time we will be before the House with legislation 
on this topic. Until that date, I urge members to support this first 
step.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on 
Surface Transportation, who has spent such an enormous amount of time 
on this bill, and I congratulate him on his work.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise in support of this conference report on this most historic 
piece of legislation.
  For too long, this Nation has allowed its basic surface 
transportation system to deteriorate. For too long, we have witnessed 
unsafe road conditions contributing to the fatality and injury rate of 
the American public. And for too long, we have experienced our 
competitive posture in world commerce be adversely affected by an 
increasingly inefficient surface transportation network.
  Today, we are making an historic move that this shall be no more.
  This conference agreement to authorize Federal highway, highway 
safety, motor carrier and transit programs is the largest and most 
comprehensive surface transportation bills to be considered in the 
history of our Nation, and I am very proud of this legislation.
  I am proud of our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster), and our ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar). I am proud of our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). I am very proud of the staff that has worked 
virtually around the clock for the last 2 or 3 weeks to get this 
historic legislation to the floor of the House, and they deserve the 
highest words of praise as well.
  Indeed, in dollar terms, this legislation will provide over $200 
billion during the course of a 6-year period for highway and transit 
facilities.
  However, there is much more than just dollars in this legislation. It 
transcends considerations of the concrete, the asphalt, the steel and 
stone. Indeed, what we are doing in this legislation is improving our 
standard of living for our children in generations to come. It entails 
a type of legacy that we wish to leave future generations of Americans. 
It is an investment in America's infrastructure finally and foremost, 
rather than throwing money overseas.
  So I approve of this legislation wholeheartedly.
  We address safety. We address the environment. We address 
flexibility. We truly have an intermodal piece of legislation here, and 
I commend it to my colleagues for passage.
  Safety. We are all concerned about the safety of our children and our 
families. This bill contains an impressive array of weapons to combat 
unsafe road conditions, and importantly, unsafe drivers. Road rage is 
on the rise in the country. Tempers flare as drivers are gridlocked in 
traffic snarls.
  This bill will bring to bear an better financed Congestion Mitigation 
and Air Quality program that contains the keys to unlock that gridlock 
and sooth those flaring tempers.
  With this bill, we are also escalating the war against drunk driving, 
including through a $500 million arsenal of incentives to the States to 
lower blood alcohol content standards.
  The environment. Transportation is about much more than roads, 
bridges and highways. It is also about alternative means of moving 
people from place to place. The Transportation Enhancements Programs 
will experience a significant increase in funding for an expanded list 
of eligible projects that will serve to make the transportation 
experience more enjoyable for many Americans.
  Innovation. Americans are innovative by nature, and this bill rewards 
that attitude in terms of both technology and financing.
  Under it, intelligent transportation systems, maglev and other new 
transportation initiatives will be further advanced, and indeed, taken 
past the demonstration stage and placed into every day use.
  Further, this legislation further promotes innovative financing 
approaches to transportation problems through a wide range of tools.
  And finally, a promise. A promise that will now be fulfilled to the 
people of the Appalachian Region more than 30 years ago.
  For the first time, the Appalachian Highway System will be fully 
incorporated into the Nation's highway program and financed by trust 
fund revenues.
  This will provide a secure and dedicated source of funding for the 
unfinished segments of the Appalachian Development Highway System, 
opening impoverished areas greater accessibility and subsequent 
economic development.
  In this regard, the inclusion of this program in this legislation is 
due to the efforts of West Virginia's senior Senator, Robert C. Byrd. 
And it will stand as his lasting legacy.
  In conclusion, to the American motorist, know this. The taxes we pay 
every time we gas-up our vehicles will no longer be used for non-
transportation purposes.
  This bill contains an iron-clad, rock-ribbed, copper-riveted 
guarantee that fuel tax revenues will be spent on highway and transit 
improvements. We have built a fire wall around these revenues from 
which there will be no diversion.
  My colleagues, I would be remiss if I did not express our 
appreciation of the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, Bud Shuster, and for our ranking Member, Jim Oberstar, 
for their tireless efforts on behalf of securing fairness, equity and 
justice in the federal highway and transit programs as exemplified by 
this conference agreement.
  These two gentlemen, along with Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri and 
myself, worked to uphold the principles espoused in the House bill 
during our meetings with the other body.
  I must also commend the Secretary of Transportation. During the 
course of our deliberations over this legislation, Rodney Slater did 
not sit idly in his office. He rolled up his sleeves and got down to 
work with us to seek resolution of many, many difficult issues and 
decisions that were addressed.
  I urge approval by the House of this conference report.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.

[[Page H3949]]

  At this time, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Stump), chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report.
  When this measure was before the House last month, it included a 
provision which stated that savings from veterans' programs should not 
be used to offset any costs associated with the bill.
  The House also passed a second provision which I supported, 
instructing House negotiators not to use funds from changes in 
veterans' programs to pay for these projects.
  The conference report ignores those provisions for the most part.
  Mr. Speaker, over the past dozen years, the VA Committee has reported 
legislation changing veterans' programs and saving the American 
taxpayer over $12 billion.
  In addition, Congress has reversed veterans' spending created by 
courts in the Davenport and Gardner cases, leading to an additional 
billion dollars or more in savings.
  When the Administration suggested that we repeal the windfall created 
by the VA General Counsel decision that requires the VA to compensate 
veterans with tobacco-related illnesses, the Administration projected 
that the repeal would save $17 billion over five years.
  The Administration also suggested that we spend only $1.5 billion of 
that savings to enhance neglected programs serving veterans.
  Unfortunately, the conferees have handed the Administration a victory 
by using all but $1.6 billion of the $17 billion in savings for 
purposes other than veterans' programs.
  It's not right that less than 10 percent of those savings is being 
put back into the budget for veterans.
  While this $1.6 billion will be used to improve some of our highest 
priority veterans' programs, we should do better.
  It's not right Mr. Speaker--vote against the conference report that 
takes too much from veterans' programs.
  Mr. Speaker, for the information of my colleagues, I am including the 
following information on the issue of VA disability compensation for 
tobacco-related disabilities.
  I also include an explanation of the proposed increase in benefits 
for veterans going to school under the Montgomery GI Bill and other 
benefit enhancements.

                       Background and Discussion


  Legislative History of Provision Repealing VA Tobacco Compensation 
                               Authority

       In January 1993, the General Counsel of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, Mr. James A. Endicott, Jr., signed a 
     memorandum addressed to the Chairman of the Board of 
     Veterans' Appeals (BVA) which had as its subject 
     ``Entitlement to Benefits Based upon Tobacco Use While in 
     Service.'' This memorandum was Office of General Counsel 
     Precedent Opinion 2-93. Under applicable Department 
     regulation (38 C.F.R. 14.507(b)), a ``precedent opinion'' is 
     one that ``necessitates regulatory change, interprets a 
     statute or regulation as a matter of first impression, 
     clarifies or modifies a prior opinion, or is otherwise of 
     significance beyond the matter at issue.'' A precedent 
     opinion is:
       ``Binding on Department officials and employees in 
     subsequent matters involving a legal issue decided in the 
     precedent opinion, unless there has been a material change in 
     a controlling statute or regulation or the opinion has been 
     overruled or modified by a subsequent precedent opinion or 
     judicial decision.''
       The precedent opinion arose in the context of an appeal to 
     the Board of Veterans' Appeals by the surviving spouse of a 
     veteran who died of adenocarcinoma of the lung and who had 
     smoked a pack and a half of cigarettes per day for over forty 
     years. In the opinion, the General Counsel held that the BVA 
     could determine whether nicotine dependence may be considered 
     a disease or injury for disability compensation purposes. It 
     also held that ``direct service connection of disability or 
     death may be established if the evidence establishes that 
     injury or disease resulted from tobacco use in line of duty 
     in the active military, naval, or air service'' and that 
     ``tobacco use does not constitute drug abuse within the 
     meaning of statutes'' prohibiting VA from considering drug or 
     alcohol abuse as occurring in line of duty.
       A subsequent decision by the BVA determined that the 
     veteran's tobacco use while in service was an ``event or 
     exposure'' that resulted some years after service in disease 
     that produced disability and death. Accordingly, the claim of 
     the surviving spouse was allowed.
       The Compensation and Pension Service of the Veterans 
     Benefits Administration (VBA) advised VBA field adjudicative 
     units in a March 4, 1993 conference call to defer action on 
     claims involving the use of tobacco products during active 
     service. This moratorium on action lasted for four years 
     until a January 28, 1997 directive was issued giving field 
     adjudicative units instructions on how to process tobacco-
     related claims. In May of 1997, VA General Counsel Mary Lou 
     Keener issued another precedent opinion addressing the 
     circumstances in which VA could determine that tobacco-
     related disability or death that was secondary to in-service 
     tobacco use was service connected for VA benefit purposes. 
     That opinion held that if: 1) nicotine dependence could be 
     considered a disease for purposes of laws governing veterans' 
     benefits; 2) the veteran acquired a dependence on nicotine in 
     service; and 3) that dependence was the proximate cause of 
     disability or death, then service connection could be 
     established on a secondary basis.
       In May of 1997, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown 
     transmitted a legislative proposal on behalf of the 
     Administration to terminate the VA's authority to compensate 
     or otherwise award benefits to a veteran for diseases or 
     deaths attributable in whole or in part to the use of tobacco 
     products by a veteran during military service. According to 
     Secretary Brown's letter:
       ``This amendment is consistent with the 1990 budget 
     reconciliation act, in which Congress prohibited compensation 
     for disabilities which are the result of veterans' abuse of 
     alcohol and drugs. This was fiscally responsible action which 
     enhanced the integrity of our compensation programs, and our 
     proposal regarding tobacco use is offered in that same 
     spirit. In addition, claims based upon tobacco-related 
     disorders present medical and legal issues which could impede 
     ongoing efforts to speed claim processing by placing 
     significant additional demands on the adjudicative system. 
     This provision would not preclude establishment of service 
     connection for disability or death from a disease or injury 
     which became manifest or was aggravated during active service 
     or became manifest to the requisite degree of disability 
     during any applicable presumptive period specified in section 
     1112 or 1116 of title 38, United States Code. This amendment 
     would apply to claims filed after the date of its 
     enactment.''
       The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on 
     Benefits held a hearing on May 14, 1997 on the VA's proposal. 
     Testimony was received from veterans organizations and the 
     Department. The Subcommittee made no recommendation on the 
     proposed legislation.
       In a letter dated September 19, 1997, (copy attached) VA 
     Secretary-Designate Hershel W. Gober urged the Congress to 
     take action on the VA's legislative proposal regarding 
     tobacco-related benefits. In this same letter, Secretary-
     Designate Gober highlighted a new cost estimate of the impact 
     of processing and paying tobacco-related claims. According to 
     the Secretary-Designate, if VA could process all claims 
     immediately, the cost of compensating veterans would be $4.4 
     billion in fiscal year 1998 and $23.8 billion over five 
     years. It was estimated that VA could receive 540,000 
     tobacco-related claims, and that this would increase the VA's 
     backlog of pending claims to over 1.5 million in fiscal year 
     1998, and that average processing time would increase from 
     113 days to 312 days.
       A letter dated March 17, 1998 (copy attached) from VA 
     Acting Secretary Togo West reaffirmed the Administration's 
     position on compensation benefits for tobacco-related 
     disabilities. It also noted that according to the President's 
     budget submission ``enactment of VA's proposal would result 
     in FY '99 savings of $741 million and five-year savings of 
     $16.9 billion.''
       In response to a question about the intent of the 
     Administration's proposal, Acting General Counsel Robert E. 
     Coy clarified the intent of the legislative language with 
     regard to veterans with diseases that could be attributable 
     to tobacco use or some other cause. Mr. Coy stated in his 
     March 19, 1998 letter (copy attached) that:
       ``The Administration's proposal would in no way affect 
     veterans' ability to establish service connection on the 
     basis of any legal presumptions authorizing VA benefits. The 
     Administration has proposed only that disabilities or deaths 
     may not be considered service connected ``on the basis that'' 
     the underlying diseases are ``attributable in whole or in 
     part to the use of tobacco products by the veterans during 
     service.'' The effect of enactment of this proposal would be 
     that if the only manner in which a disability or death could 
     be considered service connected is ``on the basis that'' it 
     is due to either the veteran's tobacco use or nicotine 
     dependence in service, that avenue for establishing service 
     connection would be foreclosed.''
       On March 30, 1998, Acting Secretary West transmitted a 
     revised draft of its proposed legislation to the Congress 
     (copy attached). Acting Secretary (now Secretary) West noted 
     that:
       ``Like the consumption of alcohol, the use of tobacco 
     products is not a requirement of military service. Most 
     veterans, like most Americans, do not use tobacco products. 
     It is inappropriate to compensate those veterans who do use 
     tobacco, and their survivors, under a program developed for 
     veterans who became disabled in service to our nation.
       ``In the debate which has ensued since our proposal of last 
     May, we have heard no persuasive argument for why it should 
     fall upon the government to compensate veterans for, or treat 
     on a service-connected basis, disabilities first arising 
     postservice whose only connections (sic) to service are the 
     veterans' own tobacco use. We do not believe the American 
     people consider these to be the government's responsibility. 
     (emphasis added).''
       In the VA Committee's report to the Committee on the Budget 
     on the budget proposed for veterans' programs for fiscal year 
     1999, the Committee expressed the following view on the 
     Administration's proposal:

[[Page H3950]]

       ``The Committee concurs with former Secretary Brown's 
     concerns about the integrity of the compensation system. The 
     Committee also believes that paying compensation to veterans 
     for tobacco-related illnesses goes beyond the government's 
     responsibility. There is a significant philosophical 
     difference between service-connected compensation and other 
     disability programs such as Social Security or the VA pension 
     program which make no distinctions based on when a disability 
     or illness occurs or is first diagnosed. Service-connected 
     compensation, on the other hand, is based on the presumption 
     that a person would not have the illness or disability save 
     for some event or circumstance beyond the person's control. A 
     policy of paying compensation for tobacco-related illnesses 
     absolves the veteran of personal responsibility for his or 
     her choices about tobacco use. In the past, Congress has 
     determined that the individual, not the federal government, 
     is responsible for illnesses which are related to the use of 
     alcohol or drugs. Thus, a policy of paying benefits for 
     illnesses related to the use of tobacco would be inconsistent 
     with these prior determinations.
       ``The Committee is also very concerned that the projected 
     annual caseload of 540,000 tobacco-related claims would 
     overload the adjudication system and lengthen the already-
     too-long processing time for all types of claims. VA 
     estimated in 1997 that processing time for an original 
     compensation claim would increase from 113 days to 312 days.
       ``To reflect the nation's commitment to its veterans, the 
     Committee will recommend legislation that will use all of the 
     savings from enacting a limitation on compensation for 
     tobacco-related illnesses to improve a wide range of 
     programs. These are programs affecting our most disabled 
     veterans, surviving dependents, separating service members, 
     unemployed and under-employed veterans, and those seeking an 
     education or a home.''
       Section 8203. Twenty percent increase in rates of basic 
     educational assistance under Montgomery GI Bill. This 
     provision would increase the current Montgomery GI Bill basic 
     rate from $440 per month to $528 per month (chapter 30) 
     beginning October 1, 1998, and the basic rate for the 
     Selected Reserve Educational Assistance (chapter 1606). This 
     is a 20 percent increase and follows the Administration's 
     proposal.
       Section 8204. Increase in assistance amount for specially 
     adapted housing. This section increases the adaptive housing 
     grants for severely disabled veterans from $38,000 to 
     $43,000. The VA offers a one-time Specially Adapted Housing 
     grant to certain severely disabled veterans so that they may 
     purchase a home specially adapted to their needs or make 
     modifications to current residences. The last increase was 10 
     years ago.
       Section 8205. Increase in amount of assistance for 
     automobile and adaptive equipment for certain disabled 
     veterans. This increases the auto allowance for severely 
     disabled veterans from $5,500 to $8,000 to account for the 
     rising cost of automobiles. The VA provides a one-time 
     payment toward the purchase of an automobile or other 
     conveyance to certain veterans with a service-connected loss 
     of one or both hands or feet or permanent loss of use, or 
     permanent impairment of vision in both eyes. This would be 
     the first increase since 1988.
       Section 8206. Increase in aid and attendance rates for 
     veterans eligible for pension. This section increases the 
     monthly pension benefit by $50 for severely disabled veterans 
     in need of the full time aid and attendance of another 
     person. This increase is intended to assist the increasing 
     number of low-income veterans who will need alternatives to 
     nursing home care over the next 15 years.
       Section 8207. Eligibility of certain remarried surviving 
     spouses for reinstatement of Dependency and Indemnity 
     Compensation upon termination of that remarriage. This 
     provision will allow all surviving spouses of veterans who 
     die from a service-connected disability to resume their 
     Dependency and Indemnity Compensation if their subsequent 
     remarriage ends. This repeals an OBRA 1990 provision.
       Section 8208. Extension of prior revision to offset rule 
     for Department of Defense Special Separation Benefit program. 
     The 1997 DOD Authorization Act prohibited VA compensation 
     offsets on the gross amount of special separation bonuses 
     (SSB) for those separating after September 30, 1996. This 
     section would make that provision in the 1997 DOD 
     Authorization Act retroactive to 1991. If a bonus recipient 
     subsequently qualifies for VA disability compensation, 
     current law requires VA to offset the entire amount of SSB, 
     including amounts withheld as income tax.
                                  ____



                            The Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

                               Washington, DC, September 19, 1997.
     Hon. Bob Stump,
     Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: It is because of my deep concern about 
     the impact that tobacco-related compensation could have on 
     the integrity of the entire compensation system, coupled with 
     the fiscal impact, that I am writing you to encourage your 
     action on the VA legislative proposal regarding tobacco-
     related service connection. I am also concerned that this 
     sizable influx of claims into our system will so 
     significantly increase our backlog that veterans with non-
     tobacco related conditions will experience intolerable delays 
     in the processing of their claims. These concerns are made 
     eminently clear in our official estimate of the potential 
     impact of compensating veterans for tobacco-related 
     conditions which is transmitted with this letter.
       This is an extremely complex estimate--one which has been 
     taken us considerable time to develop. Contributing to its 
     complexity is the number of assumptions that had to be made 
     about veterans' health and mortality, veterans' smoking 
     behavior, and most significantly, the rate at which veterans' 
     tobacco-related compensation claims may be anticipated. I 
     believe that the assistance provided us by Jeffrey Harris, 
     MD, Ph.D., a nationally, known expert in the area of costs 
     associated with tobacco-related diseases, was critical to 
     informing our decisions. Dr. Harris' report is included as 
     part of this package.
       Although some of the many assumptions in our calculations 
     could produce differing results, any reasonable calculation 
     would know just how big an issue tobacco-related compensation 
     is for VA, and for the Nation.
       I want to highlight some significant points about the 
     estimated cost and workload impact of tobacco-related 
     compensation. If we could process all claims immediately, we 
     believe that compensating veterans and survivors could cost 
     an estimated $4.4 billion in Fiscal Year 1998 and $23.8 
     billion over the next five years. These estimates do not 
     include the cost of benefits to survivors of already deceased 
     veterans.
       Realistically, we estimate that while we may receive over 
     540,000 tobacco-related claims, we will not be able to 
     process them upon receipt. The backlog of all VA disability 
     claims will increase from current 465,000 to over 1.5 million 
     in Fiscal Year 1998, and increase steadily to over 2 million 
     in Fiscal Year 2000. At the same time, the processing time of 
     original claims will deteriorate from the current 113 days to 
     312 days.
       Because of the backlog, the actual tobacco benefits paid 
     will likely be $40 million in the first year and $1.9 billion 
     over the next five years unless there is a significant 
     reallocation of resources that would permit dramatic changes 
     in the Veterans Benefits Administration's information 
     technology and infrastructure, and allow for massive hiring 
     and training of new VA employees.
       I appreciate your patience in waiting for this estimate. We 
     are also examining the impact of tobacco-related compensation 
     on the VA health care system. Clearly, the service connection 
     of substantial numbers of veterans for tobacco-related 
     conditions that in most cases have intense and costly medical 
     treatment associated with them has the potential for large 
     numbers of newly eligible, high priority veterans to seek 
     health care from VA.
       I hope you will agree with me that the enormity of the 
     impact on the claims backlog and on timeless of processing as 
     well the fiscal impact, punctuate the critical need for 
     prompt enactment of that legislation. I will be happy to 
     personally discuss this with you, and VA staff are available 
     to provide further explanation to Committee staff as desired.
       I think that these estimates clearly explain why we should 
     all be concerned about the implications of tobacco-related 
     compensation. I look forward to the Committee's prompt action 
     on the proposed legislation to remedy this situation.
       Please let me know if we can provide additional 
     information.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Hershel W. Gober,
     Secretary-Designate.
                                  ____



                               Department of Veterans Affairs,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 1998.
     Hon. Bob Stump,
     Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you and your colleagues on the House 
     Veterans' Affairs Committee make final preparations to submit 
     your Fiscal Year 1999 budgetary views and estimates to the 
     House Budget Committee, I am taking this opportunity to 
     highlight and reaffirm the Administration's position on 
     compensation benefits for tobacco-related disabilities.
       VA has proposed legislation to preclude service-connected 
     benefit eligibility based upon diseases which first arise 
     after service (and after any post-service presumptive period) 
     if their only connection to service is the veterans' own use 
     of tobacco products. VA's proposal would not preclude service 
     connection for tobacco-related diseases actually manifesting 
     themselves in service or within presumptive periods in law, 
     and would apply only to claims filed after the date of 
     enactment.
       The Department's position is based upon several 
     considerations. First, the responsibility to compensate 
     veterans for diseases whose connection to service is the 
     veterans' own tobacco use--in some cases only briefly--while 
     in service, should not rest with the Government. Second, we 
     believe that providing benefits in these cases exceeds the 
     American public's sense of the Government's obligations to 
     veterans, and so threatens to undermine support for VA 
     programs. Third, if projections regarding the magnitude of 
     future tobacco-related claims--perhaps as many as 540,000 in 
     a year--prove anywhere near correct, without our legislation 
     VA's claims system could be so overwhelmed as to seriously 
     impair its ability to process claims of any kind in a timely 
     manner.
       As reflected in the President's FY '99 budget submission, 
     enactment of VA's proposal would result in FY '99 savings of 
     $741 million

[[Page H3951]]

     and five-year savings of $16.9 billion. We appreciate your 
     consideration of our views on this critical issue.
           Sincerely,
     Togo D. West, Jr., Acting Secretary.
                                  ____

         DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Office of the General 
           Counsel
                                     Washington DC, March 1, 1998.
     Carl Commenator, Esq.,
     Chief Counsel and Staff Director, Committee on Veterans' 
         Affairs, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Commenator. You have requested that we provide, as 
     a technical service, an explanation as to how the 
     Administration's proposal to restrict service connection for 
     certain tobacco-related disabilities and deaths would, if 
     enacted, affect claimants' ability to establish service 
     connection under certain presumptions in law and regulation. 
     Specifically, you referenced a number of conditions presumed 
     to be service connected if suffered by certain veterans 
     exposed to ionizing radiation or herbicides I service.
       The short answer is that the Administration's proposal 
     would in no way affect veterans' ability to establish service 
     connection on the basis on any legal presumptions authorizing 
     VA benefits. The Administration has proposed only that 
     disabilities or deaths may not be considered service 
     connected ``on the basis that'' the underlying diseases are 
     ``attributable in whole or in part to the use of tobacco 
     products by the veteran during service''. The effect of 
     enactment of this proposal would be that if the only manner 
     in which a disability or death could be considered service 
     connected is ``on the basis that'' it is due to either the 
     veteran's tobacco use or nicotine dependence in service, that 
     avenue for establishing service connection would be 
     foreclosed.
       The new Sec. 1103(b) of title 38, United States Code, as 
     proposed in the Administration's bill, would specifically 
     provide that this change in law would in no way preclude 
     establishing service connection on the basis of the 
     presumptions authorized under Sec. Sec. 1112 and 1116 of 
     title 38:
       Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed as precluding 
     the establishment of service connection for disability or 
     death from a disease or injury which . . . . became manifest 
     to the requisite degree of disability during any applicable 
     presumptive period specified in section 1112 or 1116 of this 
     title.
       In other words, if a disability or death could be presumed 
     service connected on the basis of the various provisions of 
     sections 1112 and 1116, which of course include presumptions 
     for certain radiation-exposed and herbicide-exposed veterans, 
     the proposed limitation on establishing service connection 
     ``on the basis of'' tobacco use in service would have no 
     preclusive effect at all.
       For example, as authorized by Sec. 1112(c), specified 
     cancers may be presumed service connected if suffered by 
     certain radiation-exposed veterans. If a veteran could 
     qualify for service connection under such a presumption, as 
     the Administration's tobacco legislation plainly states, that 
     service connection and resulting benefit eligibility would be 
     unaffected by enactment of the legislation. The same is true 
     for all other presumptions in law, including the herbicide 
     presumptions for respiratory cancers and other illnesses 
     authorized by Sec. 1116 of title 38.
       The result of enactment of our legislation would be to 
     simply restore the manner and method by which VA adjudicated 
     claims prior to issuance of the two General Counsel opinion 
     on tobacco use and service connection.
       I hope the foregoing is fully responsive to your request.
           Sincerely yours,
     Robert E. Coy, Acting General Counsel.
                                  ____



                               Department of Veterans Affairs,

                                   Washington, DC, March 30, 1998.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed is a draft bill, the ``Veterans 
     Tobacco Amendments of 1998'', which I ask be referred to the 
     appropriate committee for prompt consideration and enactment. 
     It would relieve the Government of an unjustified liability 
     for certain postservice health effects of veterans' tobacco 
     use in service.
       On May 9, 1997, VA submitted to Congress a draft bill whose 
     provisions included a proposal bar to establishing service 
     connection for disabilities or deaths if their only 
     relationship to service were the veterans' inservice nicotine 
     dependence or use of tobacco products. The enclosed draft is 
     substantively identical to section 105 of the bill VA offered 
     last year, introduced in the Senate as S. 987.
       Our Nation has an enduring obligation to those who, because 
     of serving in defense of our freedoms, become disabled or 
     die. We at VA are privileged to be the ones who deliver on 
     that obligation. However, Congress has recognized the 
     appropriateness of boundaries to the compensation program. 
     This bill is consistent with the 1990 budget reconciliation 
     act, in which Congress prohibited payment of disability 
     benefits for illnesses based solely on use of alcohol or 
     drugs during military service. Like the consumption of 
     alcohol, the use of tobacco products is not a requirement of 
     military service. Most veterans, like most Americans, do not 
     use tobacco products. It is inappropriate to compensate those 
     veterans who do use tobacco, and their survivors, under a 
     program developed for veterans who became disabled in service 
     to our nation.
       In the debate which has ensued since our proposal of last 
     May, we have heard no persuasive argument for why it should 
     fall upon the government to compensate veterans for, or treat 
     on a service-connected basis, disabilities first arising 
     postservice whose only connections to service are the 
     veterans' own tobacco use. We do not believe the American 
     people consider these to be the government's responsibility. 
     However, our proposal would not preclude service connection 
     for tobacco-related disabilities or deaths from diseases 
     which actually manifest themselves during service or within 
     any applicable presumptive period, and to this extent our 
     bill is less preclusive than the alcohol- and drug-abuse 
     proscription. Our proposal also is limited in its reach to 
     claims filed with VA after its enactment. Thus, veterans and 
     survivors currently receiving these benefits and veterans and 
     survivors filing claims prior to enactment would not be 
     affected by the change.
       We are privileged to serve as stewards for veterans 
     programs, which deservedly enjoy broad public support. With 
     that stewardship, however, comes a responsibility to 
     recommend appropriate changes when we sense they may become 
     imperiled by something which could undermine public support 
     for them. The estimated influx of tobacco-related claims--
     perhaps as many as 540,000 in the next year--threatens to 
     overwhelm our adjudication system and result in 
     unconscionable delays for all VA claimants. Because of the 
     enormous implications it could have in terms of both costs 
     and impact on claims processing, the current requirement that 
     VA consider these smoking-related disabilities and deaths to 
     be service connected carries the potential for just such 
     programmatic harm.
       This legislation would affect direct spending; therefore, 
     it is subject to the pay-as-you-go (paygo) requirement of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990. As 
     reflected in the President's Budget for FY 1999, enactment of 
     this proposal would result in paygo savings of $741 million 
     during FY 1999 and $16.9 billion over the period FYs 1999-
     2003.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection to the submission of this draft bill to the 
     Congress, and that its enactment would be in accord with the 
     Administration's program.
           Sincerely yours,
     Togo D. West, Jr., Acting Secretary.
                                  ____

       A Bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide 
     that service connection for certain disabilities or deaths 
     may not be established solely on the basis of inservice 
     tobacco use or nicotine dependence.
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

       This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Tobacco Amendments 
     of 1998''.

     SECTION 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST VETERANS BENEFIT ELIGIBILITY 
                   BASED SOLELY UPON TOBACCO USE IN SERVICE.

       (a) Service Connection.--Subchapter 1 of chapter 11 of 
     title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:

     ``Sec. 1103. Special provisions relating to claims based upon 
       effects of tobacco products.

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
     veteran's disability or death shall not be considered to have 
     resulted from personal injury suffered or disease contracted 
     in line of duty in the active military, naval or air service 
     for purposes of this title on the basis that it resulted from 
     injury or disease attributable in whole or in part to the use 
     of tobacco products by the veteran during the veteran's 
     service.
       ``(b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed as 
     precluding the establishment of service connection for 
     disability or death from a disease or injury which is 
     otherwise shown to have been incurred or aggravated in active 
     military, naval or air service or which became manifest to 
     the requisite degree of disability during any applicable 
     presumption period specified in section 1112 or 1116 of this 
     title.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 11 of title 38, United State Code, is 
     amended by adding the following new item after the item 
     relating to section 1102:

     ``1103. Special provisions relating to claims based upon 
       effects of tobacco products.''.

     SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to claims 
     received by the Secretary after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr.Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Chairman of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee has indicated that he is not supporting this piece of 
legislation. I heard my colleague say that this is a social safety net. 
Well, what we need to know that just got paved over are low-income, 
disabled veterans who had a funding in this bill. It was only $500 
million, but it was a chance to create a permanent program for low-
income, disabled veterans to get what we said they deserve.

[[Page H3952]]

  Mr. Speaker, the reason I wanted to enter into a colloquy is that if 
they are not allowed to use the tobacco money, is it not true that 
there are a number of excess acres and VA sites around the country, my 
understanding is, on Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly Hills? How ironic 
that this land is not being used for the veterans, but they want to 
preserve it for a greenbelt, and yet we are taking veterans' money to 
pave over areas for highways.
  Would the Chairman look at the excess acreage in veterans' holdings 
to try to provide money for long-term care for veterans?
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, first, the 
gentleman is absolutely correct. We do have that property, and I make a 
proposition that we will look into it. We are being shortchanged in 
this bill. We are getting back less than 10 percent of this for 
veterans' savings, and that is simply not fair to the veterans of this 
country.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, frankly, as a Member of 
this side of the aisle, to say that the President said we should take 
this money away from veterans certainly is no reason to do so as far as 
I am concerned.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle), representing the conferees on behalf of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding me 
this time and for his leadership on this bill.
  As the lead House conferee on the revenue title of H.R. 2400, I want 
to begin by thanking the Speaker for the honor of leading the House of 
Representatives as the conferee on the House tax title. In particular, 
I would also like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means for his assistance and leadership and guidance during this 
conference, as well as staff members Jim Clark, Norah Mosely and Ben 
Hartley of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Rich Meade on my staff.
  The provisions of this title I think are important, first of all, 
because it continues the Highway Trust Fund, the mass transit account, 
for an additional 6 years through the fiscal year 2005. As many of my 
colleagues know as well, I, along with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Hulshof) and many others, worked to include in the conference report a 
continuation of the Federal Government's commitment to a clean-burning, 
renewable fuel, such as ethanol, until the year 2007.
  This conference report also simplifies the matter in which gasoline 
and diesel fuel tax refunds are administered. This is welcome news to 
registered fuel terminals and those who seek a simplified refund 
procedure for motor fuel excise taxes.
  Railroads currently face an onerous fuels tax which was imposed in 
the name of deficit reduction a number of years ago. This conference 
report begins to roll back those taxes by 1.25 cents per gallon 
starting in November of 1998.
  More than half of the taxes sport fishermen and other users of motor 
boat fuels pay are not used for aquatic resources, but instead was 
dedicated for ``budget deficit reduction.'' This conference report 
takes a big step towards dedicating those revenues for aquatic 
resources restoration and development.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) worked very 
hard to include a provision in the conference report to allow Amtrak 
more flexibility to use their funds in States where Amtrak does not 
operate. This provision will allow States such as South Dakota to 
enhance their rail service in their States.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the conference report expands the tax-favored 
treatment to employer-provided transit passes and van pooling. More 
specifically, the conference agreement would allow employers to offer 
their workers the option of electing cash compensation in lieu of any 
qualified transportation benefit. In addition, the inclusion for 
transit passes and van pooling benefits is increased by $100 per month 
beginning in 2002.
  I want to again thank the chairman of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure for his leadership. I want to thank my fellow 
conferees.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Stabenow).
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member.
  It is my understanding that the Department of Transportation has 
entered in Full Funding Grant Agreements with 15 transit agencies 
nationwide. FFGAs are commitments by the Federal Government to provide 
funding for a project according to a schedule established by the 
agreement.
  In my region, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District 
worked for more than 10 years to put together the financing package 
necessary to gain a full funding grant agreement. Our region has 
committed significant State and local resources for the BART-to-San-
Francisco Airport and Santa Clara County Tasman projects, both of which 
have FFGAs.
  Is it correct that the intent of this conference report is to meet 
the full funding grant agreements that have been signed by the DOT?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as explained in the 
report accompanying H.R. 2400, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure ``emphasizes the importance of fulfilling the Federal 
commitment to projects under full funding grant agreements at page 201 
of report 105-467.''
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as we know, language was included 
in the House bill, H.R. 2400, which would have directed the 
Commonwealth of Virginia Transportation Board to resolve funding issues 
relating to rights-of-way acquisition and engineering overruns 
associated with segments of the Fairfax County Parkway.
  Mr. Speaker, is it the intent of the legislation that this provision 
be applicable?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I concur with the 
gentleman's comments. I am aware of the situation. I would hope that 
this problem would be rectified before any other legislative action is 
necessary.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank 
him for his leadership on this matter.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), a 
distinguished member of our committee.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I would like to enter into a colloquy with both the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster).
  This pertains to Wacker Drive, which is a two-level road structure 
that runs through central downtown Chicago. It is a major arterial road 
for business operating in downtown Chicago. Without Federal funding, 
lower Wacker Drive will have to be closed in 3 or 4 years.
  I would also like to talk about the Stevenson Expressway. It is an 
interstate that runs through the 3rd Congressional District in 
Illinois. It is in dire need of reconstruction. Without adequate 
Federal funding, the reconstruction effort will take 4 years. With 
adequate Federal funding, it will only take 2 years, saving 2 years of 
congestion and traffic headaches.
  The State of Illinois and the City of Chicago would like to begin 
construction of these projects using its own funds, applying $175 
million to the Stevenson Expressway and $400 million to the Wacker 
Drive project.
  It is my understanding that, under section 115 of title 23, the 
United States Secretary of Transportation has the authority to allow a 
State or city to begin a project with non-Federal funds and then be 
reimbursed by the Highway Trust Fund discretionary funds.
  Would the ranking member of the committee and the chairman support 
application of the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago to proceed 
in this manner?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, not only would I 
support the application and urge the

[[Page H3953]]

Secretary to approve this proposal to fund these two worthwhile 
projects, I have already discussed this matter with the Secretary. We 
have his attention, and we will work very closely and vigorously with 
the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster), the chairman of our committee.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I would emphasize that under the formula in 
this legislation Illinois gets $203 million a year more than it was 
getting under ISTEA, and there are very substantial additional State 
funds also available.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the full 
committee, and I also want to thank the ranking member of the full 
committee.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Wise), a member of the committee and one of our 
conferees.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot said about veterans. The 
veterans are definitely on all of our minds today.
  Let me just say that the membership should be aware that working with 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), working with others, we were able to 
include in this bill a sense of Congress resolution that the Attorney 
General should have commenced a civil action to seek to recover from 
the tobacco companies those amounts corresponding to the costs which 
would be incurred by the Department of Veterans Affairs for the 
treatment of tobacco-related illnesses of veterans if such payments 
were authorized by law, and also that the Congress could authorize 
those payments then to be given to those veterans who have been 
affected.
  This is only a first step, but it is an important step, because it 
puts the Congress on record requesting the Department of Veterans 
Affairs and the Attorney General to enter into this litigation on 
behalf of our veterans and our taxpayers.
  Upon the return of Congress after Memorial Day, a number of us will 
be introducing a free-standing bill to accomplish this as well, as well 
as working with many of the others of the Members to make sure that we 
are able to secure some level of benefits for those veterans that have 
had tobacco-related illnesses from their military service.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would congratulate the chairman and the ranking member 
of both the full committee and the subcommittees for a job well done. 
This bill is definitely not just an expenditure, it is an investment in 
the future of this country. I view it as that.
  I do, however, take exception with one small portion of the bill that 
I am greatly concerned about. That is cutting into title XX, which is 
clearly under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. 
There are $3 billion that are taken out of that program.
  Also, the flexibility has been reduced in order to get a budgetary 
advantage. That is going to require some damage control, and I would 
tell my colleagues, where the Governors and State legislatures all over 
this country are going to be very delighted and very happy with what we 
are going to pass today, but they are going to be coming back and to be 
very upset with title XX, which is a very important program to all the 
people across this country.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill, which has many good features, 
unfortunately is going through this House in great haste. Very few 
people have had the opportunity to read it, since I do not even know 
how many copies are in print.
  One of the problems with that, one of the problems with the fact that 
the bill was not printed until an hour or two ago is that people can 
slip things into this bill with other people not knowing about them.
  There is in my district a project, a huge boondoggle which wants to 
waste a few hundred million dollars. We have had language in every 
appropriations bill in this House for the last 5 years saying no funds 
herein appropriated should be spent on this boondoggle. The Porkbusters 
Coalition, headed by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) have said this is the worst 
project. NBC TV featured it on Fleecing of America, but it is a project 
Donald Trump wants because it will put money in his pocket. It puts 
more money in his pocket. It will spend $300 million to move a highway 
we just finished rehabbing for $90 million, solely for the purpose of 
getting it out of the way of sightlines of Mr. Trump's new buildings.
  We oppose this. Suddenly there is money in this bill for this 
project. It appeared in it last night. We just found out about it. It 
was put there by a Congresswoman whose district comes nowhere closer 
than 75 miles, and no one knew this. No one can comment on it.
  The chairman tells me the mayor supports it. That is not my 
information, but who can check it in this time? This is the wrong way 
to proceed. I hope that this money is not completely wasted.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, and I yield to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the gentleman from Minnesota in a 
colloquy. I would say to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), 
is it the intent of the conferees that the authorization for section 
332(a)(96), the Westlake Corridor Commuter Rail Link, include 
authorization for the acquisition of eight commuter rail cars for the 
South Shore Railroad?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, it is, indeed, 
and the statement of managers confirms that intention in that language.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us today marks 
a major achievement in providing the developments that are needed in 
our Nation's transportation infrastructure.
  I want to congratulate the chairman and the ranking minority member 
on the committee, and in New York and in communities across the United 
States our highways, bridges, transit systems will be far better off 
because of this bill. That is the good news.
  The bad news is that this bill does not go nearly far enough in 
making the streets safer from the horrible tragedy of drunk driving, a 
crime that claims more than 16,000 Americans, and injures countless 
more every year.
  First, let me say that I am very pleased that this bill contains 
provisions to encourage States to crack down on repeat drunk drivers. 
Too often, convicted drunk drivers find their way right back behind the 
wheel of a car to commit their crime again. I introduced repeat 
offender legislation last year after the tragic death of my 
constituent, Burton Greene, and I am pleased that Congress is finally 
taking action in this area.
  As many of my colleagues know, however, I had also hoped that the 
conference report would contain the Senate-passed provision to ensure 
that the United States, like other industrialized nations, adopt a 
national uniform DWI standard of .08 blood alcohol content.
  Regrettably, this Chamber was silenced by the Republican leadership 
from voting on that lifesaving measure last month. Even though the .08 
provision enjoys strong bipartisan support in the Senate, the 
Republican leadership did bow to pressure from the powerful liquor 
lobby and bottled the bill up in the Committee on Rules, and killed it 
in the conference.
  This outcome was an outrage, but not a surprise. Mothers Against 
Drunk Driving have big hearts but small wallets. On this bill, it came 
down to a battle between big hearts and deep pockets, and the deep 
pockets won. The liquor lobby pays a lot for the privilege of writing 
our Nation's drunken driving laws, and today, unfortunately, they got 
what they paid for.
  So here we are today with a compromise of a targeted incentive 
program to encourage

[[Page H3954]]

states to adopt the .08 standard. While the measure is better than 
current law, history tells us that incentives alone will not be enough 
to match the power of the alcohol industry in state houses across the 
country.
  On behalf of the mad Moms and mad Dads of Mothers Against Drunk 
Driving, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and all the medical and 
law enforcement experts who lobbied on behalf of .08, I want to make 
clear that this is not the end. This is not the last time Congress will 
consider the .08 issue. We will be back, and we will continue to fight 
to make .08 the law of the land. We will continue to insist that our 
Nation's drunk driving laws are written by medical and safety experts--
not the liquor lobby.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to observe that the bill that we bring back 
from conference is a very strong bill on the blood alcohol level .08 
issue. There are very strong real dollar incentives for States to 
adjust their laws to the .08 level.
  This reflects a longstanding position in this body of providing 
incentives rather than penalties. I can only speak from experience 
myself with the National Driver Register, that where I started out with 
legislation that was mandatory 15 years ago to require States to 
participate in the National Driver Register, I adjusted that to make it 
a voluntary participation. Today every State in the Nation is a 
participant in the National Driver Register, and over 300,000 bad 
drivers with multiple records are being caught and kept off the roads.
  We can, through incentives, produce good results, even better results 
than through punishment or penalties. This bill is strong on 
incentives. It is a good bill, it is good on safety. We ought to 
support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been said that this bill has a sense of the 
Congress resolution that if there is a tobacco settlement, that funds 
from that settlement should be used to restore benefits for veterans 
which are being cut in this bill.
  To me, that is like promising to bring somebody back to life after 
you have shot them. It just seems to me that that language is clearly a 
fig leaf. It is about as useful as the previous sense of Congress 
resolution which was in the original highway bill when it left the 
House. That sense of Congress language said that the conferees should 
not cut veterans, and yet they did. So I think we can see that a new 
sense of Congress resolution in this proposal is not worth the paper it 
is printed on.
  Let me also say that I think we ought to understand that we are about 
to go home on Memorial Day and rub shoulders with veterans' groups all 
over the country, and tell them, yes, sirree, boys, we really 
appreciate what you done for us, and yet, we are about to stick them 
with a $16 billion reduction in veterans' health care.
  We are also about to say to seniors who need home-based services for 
the elderly, we are about to say to families who need help to deal with 
foster children, we are about to say to women who need child care, we 
are about to say to them, we are going to cut you by one-third in the 
social service block grant.
  I have a letter which I received from 49 Members of this House just 2 
weeks ago asking us to maintain the full level of funding for the same 
title XX services which this committee cuts by $2 billion. I want to 
see how many Members are going to vote for this bill today, and then go 
home and tell their veterans that they are for veterans' health care, 
and go home and tell their seniors that they are for home health care, 
and go home and tell women of this country who need child care help 
that we are going to cut that block grant by 20 percent. I just do not 
think we ought to do it.
  I would point out there are 1,800 special projects in this bill. That 
is 80 percent more than we have provided in the history, in the 42-
year-history, of this highway bill, and we are even providing $120 
million to build a shiny new road through Canada.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, that was the question I was going to ask. I 
remember around here when we had the Lawrence Welk restoration that 
caused a lot of people a lot of heartburn. Why are we building, for my 
own information, why are we building a highway in Canada? Are we going 
to take Canada in, or what is the story?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Peterson) was thinking of attaching part of Minnesota to Canada, but I 
did not know it was going to be accompanied by $120 million for a 
highway for our Canadian friends. You will have to ask somebody who 
favors it.
  Mr. HEFNER. Could I ask some of the proponents of the highway bill, 
which I tend to support, but I do not like explaining a Lawrence Welk 
type boondoggle, if that is what it is, what is the rationale for it?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. It is my understanding this is a defense highway which 
connects Alaska, as a result of a treaty which exists with Canada. So 
it is a treaty provision. That is the reason for it.
  Mr. OBEY. I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that I think the national 
defense of the United States needs a new highway in Canada about as 
much as each of us needs a case of pneumonia.
  I would suggest that I do not think our taxpayers are going to be 
very impressed by that explanation. Let me simply, in closing, read one 
paragraph from the American Legion. It says, ``Members who support 
rescinding future veterans' benefits to pay for roads and other 
projects should be ashamed of their actions. It is unfortunate that 
Congress is willing to redirect veterans' monies to pay for highways 
and mass transit. This is truly disturbing, since CBO estimates there 
will be a $636 billion surplus. On the eve of the Memorial Day 
weekend,'' the American Legion says, ``remember that a government which 
cuts veterans' benefits relinquishes the right to ask its citizens to 
serve in the Armed Forces to protect the country. This is especially 
true when their government shares responsibility for their service-
connected disabilities, their illnesses, in the first place.''

                              {time}  1730

  I agree with that and that is why, Mr. Speaker, if I have the 
opportunity, I will be offering a motion to recommit which would 
eliminate the cuts in veterans benefits that are proposed in this 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  It is all well and good to complain about policy and about mistakes 
or projects that one disagrees with, but we ought to do so on the basis 
of fact. It is just simply fact that in order to get to one part of 
Alaska from another part of Alaska you have to go through Canada. It is 
just that simple. I have been there. I know it.
  Furthermore, this is not without precedent. In order to relieve 
flooding in North Dakota and Minnesota, many years ago the Congress 
approved flood control works in Canada in order to relieve pressure in 
the United States on North Dakota and Minnesota and the Red River 
Valley. So there are many other things that my good friend from 
Wisconsin could justify he may be opposed to, but I do think we ought 
to express the facts.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman tell me how many Canadian 
citizens use that highway every year versus how many U.S. citizens use 
the highway?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. It is for the benefit of Alaskans and other travelers 
from the lower 48 States who come to Alaska for tourism.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have already made the arguments for this historic piece of 
legislation. I am particularly pleased not only that

[[Page H3955]]

it was passed in the Senate just some minutes ago, 88 to 5, but also 
that the President of the United States has stated this afternoon, and 
I quote, that he will be ``pleased'' to sign this legislation.
  I want to recognize the tremendous cooperation we have received from 
the administration. Secretary Slater; OMB, about to become the director 
there Jack Lu, Michael Deitch; Larry Stein at the White House, Chuck 
Brain at the White House have really provided tremendous cooperation, 
and we would not be able to be here today but for their help.
  This has been a bipartisan effort. I particularly want to recognize 
Jack Schenendorf, our chief of staff. He deserves the Congressional 
Medal of Honor for the kind of skill and management expertise and 
capability that he has provided throughout, as well as the staff, which 
literally have been without sleep for the last few days: Roger Nober, 
Debbie Gebhardt, Chris Bertram, Adam Tsao, Susan Lent, Darrell Wilson, 
Linda Scott, John Glaser, Mike Strachn, Bill Hughes, Charlie Ziegler, 
Trisha Law, Mary Beth Will, Jimmy Miller, Kathy Guilfoy, Denise Beshaw 
and, indeed, I must emphasize the tremendous cooperation and support we 
received from the Democratic staff as well.
  In fact, I hesitate to call it the Republican staff and the 
Democratic staff, because we have worked together as one on a 
bipartisan basis for the good of the country. Certainly the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), members on both 
sides of the aisle on our committee have worked very hard and have 
brought this bill to the floor. Indeed, we recall that it passed 
through the House 337 to 80.
  And particularly for some who are concerned about the guarantee, let 
me point out that, really, the guarantee is less than we wanted to 
accomplish in the House. We wanted to take the trust funds off budget, 
but we had an overwhelming vote to do that. Seventy-five percent of the 
Republicans voted in favor of doing that. So this is historic 
legislation, puts the trust back in the trust fund. I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, although I am unable to cast my vote today 
for this legislation due to prior family commitments, I am pleased to 
voice my support for H.R. 2400 the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st century, or TEA 21.
  I would like to thank all of the conferees for their leadership in 
making this bi-partisan legislation a reality. This is truly an 
historic day for the United States of America. TEA 21 is a magnificent 
work which addresses many transportation related concerns.
  For example, this bill contains the most comprehensive anti-drinking 
and driving measures ever put into legislation. The people in my 
district will see the results of the significant steps this Congress 
will be taking to combat drinking and driving. This bill reauthorizes 
the discretionary bridge program. This program will give our states the 
tools to replace or repair our crumbling bridges. The bill authorizes 
funds for the Rails to Trails program, access to jobs, school bus 
safety, and many other important programs. And of course the 
legislation takes care of specific district priorities.
  I have worked with community leaders of the 30th district of New York 
over the past 2 years to find out what they needed to better the 
quality of life in our community. I submitted that list, along with 
over 400 of my house colleagues, to the committee for their 
consideration. Fortunately, for my district the Committee saw fit to 
authorize some of the things I requested.
  In the last six years, there have been two severe accidents on the 
same road in Buffalo, New York. Both of these accidents resulted in the 
loss of several lives. H.R. 2400 provides us with an opportunity to fix 
that stretch of road by creating a shoulder for disabled vehicles. This 
bill allows me to receive funding for that priority. Can anyone in this 
Chamber tell the families of the victims of these horrific accidents 
that this is pork? That it is an unnecessary project? Can anyone in 
this Chamber tell the New York State Thruway Authority, who has asked 
for funds to correct this problem that it is unworthy?
  In closing, this is a good bill. It covers a variety of needs in the 
sphere of transportation. It will rebuild our crumbling roads and 
bridges and in turn make our nation's highway's safer. This is my third 
term, this is my first opportunity to authorize our nation's 
transportation policy. I only wish, for the sake of the families who 
have suffered losses on my district's highway's over the past 6 years, 
that it could only have come sooner.
  Vote to rebuild our nation's roads and bridges. Vote for the safety 
of our highways. Vote Yes for the TEA 21 Conference Report.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2400, the ``Building Efficient Surface 
Transportation and Equity Act (BESTEA)'' bill is a highly needed piece 
of legislation. Every member of Congress wants to be able to go back to 
his or her district over the Memorial recess and give their 
constituents new roads and improved public transportation. I would be 
as proud as the next member to go back to California's 13th District 
and give them millions of dollars for road repairs and improvements--if 
it was not a deceptive form of Congressional pork and budget busting.
  This legislation authorizes approximately $216 billion in federal 
highway and transit assistance over a six-year period. This bill is too 
large and too complex to agree to when the whole process went awry. 
When Congress agrees to ``Save Social Security First'' but votes to 
spend a bloated highway bill--filled with various pork barrel 
projects--then Congress is deceiving the American people.
  The proposed funding in the BESTEA bill will deny states block grant 
funds for social services. Three billion dollars has been taken from 
programs that would have otherwise gone to services for children 
without health insurance, the disabled and the impoverished.
  The BESTEA legislation unjustly denies $15.5 billion in benefits to 
veterans for disabilities relating to tobacco use in the miltiary--a 
service-connected disability--to fund highway construction projects. I 
will not tell veterans that we would take away an earned benefit--that 
we would deny them of a healthy and productive lifestyle--to pay for 
potholes.
  Like every member of Congress, I realize the importance of safe roads 
and bridges and its impact on public health and safety. But unlike most 
members, I will not sacrifice children and welfare recipients to pave 
America's streets. I will not vote for H.R. 2400.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I want to thank the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, particularly Chairman 
Shuster, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Oberstar, and Ranking Member 
Rahall, for their monumental work in completing this historic 
transportation legislation. Throughout the process both they and their 
hard working staff were responsive to our inquiries and carefully 
considered our transportation project proposals.
  Two of the projects authorized in H.R. 2400, Building Efficient 
Surface Transportation and Equity Act, involve major repairs and 
reconstruction of Flushing Avenue. This roadway spans through various 
communities in Brooklyn and is known as a linking gateway to economic 
development. By funding these projects, we will improve and preserve a 
roadway that not only links people, industry and commerce across 
Brooklyn, but across New York City.
  The infrastructure improvements are long overdue for these 
communities. The work involved includes: removal of old trolley tracks 
(some parts of the Avenue are cobblestone); setting of new concrete 
bases (some parts of the Avenue have never had road bases); new street 
surfacing; and curbs and sidewalks rebuilding that is necessary from 
the road reconstruction work, particularly for the commercial 
residents. This project is part of the effort to bring economic 
development and opportunity to the area.
  Under the $3.75 million project, two segments of Flushing Avenue in 
Williamsburg and Bushwick would be reconstructed and resurfaced in one 
of the authorized projects for the people of the 12th District. One 
segment runs between Humboldt Street and Cypress Avenue and is lined by 
businesses, public housing units, and other residential buildings. 
Another segment falls between Porter Street and Cypress Avenue and is 
lined by commercial establishments and residential buildings.
  Another Flushing Avenue segment to be reconstructed and resurfaced 
with $2.25 million is equally important for the economic development 
and quality of life of Bushwick and the adjoining Ridgewood community. 
The segment falls between Wycoff Avenue and Gates Avenue and is lined 
by businesses, many mom-and-pop shops, supermarkets, a hospital, a post 
office, and 2-6 family-size homes.
  Mr. Speaker, I also rise today on behalf of myself and my 
distinguished colleague from New York, Congressman Towns. Today is a 
very important day for the residents, small businesses, neighborhoods, 
and public facilities of our respective congressional districts. We 
have worked tirelessly for years with the communities in Brooklyn 
surrounding the Gowanus Expressway to find the best answer to the 
congestion and crumbling condition of this major highway, which is a 
key component in the New York area's transportation network.
  The people living and businesses operating every day in these areas 
have patiently asked that a full study of alternatives to the planned 
reconstruction of the Gowanus Expressway be performed. For the economic 
viability of the area and the environmental health of the families 
living near this planned reconstruction, it is

[[Page H3956]]

crucial that the impact on the surrounding communities be adequately 
assessed.
  The Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act finally 
responds to the pleas of these New York neighborhoods. H.R. 2400 
authorizes $18 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 proposal, the Gowanus neighborhoods 
are one step closer to a real solution to this long-standing local 
transportation dilemma. This project is not only about transportation--
it is also about the economic development and empowerment future of our 
communities.
  In sum, these transportation projects represent a new era for 
Brooklyn. No longer should we approach the economic support of these 
communities with a narrow scope. All components--good schools, safe 
neighborhoods, reliable public services, clean air and water, and safe 
roads--must come together for a serious revitalization and urban 
development strategy.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in congratulating my 
colleagues, particularly Chairman Shuster and Congressman Oberstar, for 
their hard work in bringing BESTEA to the floor. This legislation is 
critical to the upkeep and development of our Nation's transportation 
system.
  I am particularly pleased that innovative financing for highway and 
mass transit projects has been included in this legislation, which I 
worked for in the House. Innovative financing will help fill annual 
transportation funding shortfalls by using limited federal dollars to 
attract private capital for the construction of federal highways and 
worthy transit projects. For every $100 million invested by the 
government, we can attract $1 billion in private capital.
  BESTEA is also good for Connecticut. It creates true ``equity'' for 
the state of Connecticut. In addition, as part of Connecticut's overall 
funding, this legislation contains funding that will enable the City of 
New Haven to begin work on I-95 at Long Wharf. This project will 
enhance the safety of this section of I-95 between New York and Boston, 
improve access to high speed rail, and recomment New Haven to its 
harbor front.
  I urge my colleagues to pass BESTEA. It's good for our Nation's 
transportation system. It's good for workers. And it's good for 
commerce.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Conference 
Report. This Conference Report is a far cry from the bill this House 
passed in April.
  I voted for the House passed bill on the assurance that the formula 
for reallocating the money from the Federal Gasoline Tax would be fair 
and equitable to all and take into consideration the unique concerns of 
states like New Jersey.
  But the Conference Report has New Jersey losing federal dollars. For 
every $1 paid in Federal Gasoline Tax by a citizen of New Jersey, the 
State of New Jersey will receive only .93 cents back from the Federal 
Government.
  This is unacceptable. New Jersey ranks near the bottom in the nation 
in the ratio of federal money returned from federal taxes paid by our 
citizens. This Conference Report adds insult to injury.
  I voted for the House passed bill in April to settle the tough budget 
issues in Conference, to create a bill that is responsible to states 
like New Jersey, to ensure that veteran and other vital programs were 
not sacrificed and to move the process along. I am sad to say that the 
Conference Report failed to resolve any of these keys issues.


                               new jersey

  My state of New Jersey is the economic crossroads of the northeastern 
United States. If it moves by truck, train, or ship chances are it 
moves through New Jersey.
  New Jersey is unique in many ways to other states. Our infrastructure 
is older, has more wear than other states and intensely urban. Our 
highways are traveled by more and more people through the northeast 
crossroads. New Jersey is also the most densely populated state in the 
nation.
  The previous ISTEA had New Jersey's unique needs in mind. From 1992 
through 1997, New Jersey received $1.03 back on every dollar paid.
  The loss of 10 cents on the dollar is unacceptable. This is not a 
good deal for New Jersey. New Jersey can no longer be a siphon for 
money for other states.
  The House passed bill took this into consideration. But this 
Conference Report reduces New Jersey's funding below the level that is 
acceptable. My ``no'' vote is to register my disagreement with the 
Conference.


                                veterans

  In the bill that passed in April, this House strongly stated that No 
Veterans benefit or service would be reduced or eliminated to pay for 
any part of the bill.
  On May 20, 1998, this House voted 422 to 0 to instruct Conferees not 
to allow any Veterans benefit or service would be reduced or eliminated 
to pay for any part of the bill.
  On two occasions, this House stood up for our nation's veterans. But 
now, the Conference Report eliminates the benefit for veterans with 
tobacco related illnesses to pay for the bill.
  And now we find that the Conference has decided to use a higher 
estimate of costs of the benefit for veterans with tobacco related 
illnesses by the OMB that puts the cost at $17 billion. (The CBO says 
it is around $10 billion if that much.)
  Of that $17 billion of those so-called savings $15 billion will go to 
pay for this bill. The extra $2 billion was promised to be directed 
toward disability and education programs.
  Does that mean $2 billion this year, next year, over six years? How 
much for disabilities? How much for education? There are too many 
questions and not enough answers.
  As my friends from the South say, ``This dog don't hunt.'' Now 
regardless of how you feel about paying for veterans with tobacco 
related illnesses, I have my questions on the merits, but the fact is: 
The House stated on two occasions, almost unanimously, that this bill 
would not cut veterans programs but in the end it does by billions of 
dollars to pay for other government programs. I personally would like 
to see all the savings from paying for veterans with tobacco related 
illnesses to be directed back into the VA to pay for a veterans health 
program that they were promised.
  So here we are, just a couple of days before Memorial Day, ready to 
vote to sacrifice those who have already sacrificed for all of us. Is 
this really the vote we want to make before Memorial Day? Is this 
really the vote we want to make after this House said not on the same 
question twice before?


                      Social service block grants

  The Conference Report takes $2.4 billion from Social Service Block 
Grants and directs it to transportation spending. These important 
grants are vital to New Jersey in providing for Child Care, Meals on 
Wheels, aid victims of domestic violence, aid to the disabled citizens, 
and emergency food to the homeless. I might add that New Jersey has one 
of the highest number of homeless veterans in the nation. Social 
Service Block Grants are a key element in providing assistance to the 
most vulnerable parts of our community. This is another unacceptable 
part of this Conference Report.
  For the reasons I have described, I can not support this Conference 
Report and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
the conference report on H.R. 2400, the Building Efficient Surface 
Transportation and Equity Act, (BESTEA). A historic piece of 
legislation which will impact positively on just about every 
Congressional District.
  I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Democrat of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Shuster and Mr. 
Oberstar for their commitment and leadership in fashioning the BESTEA 
Conference Report in time for it to be considered before the Congress 
embarks on the Memorial Day District Work Period. This isn't a perfect 
bill but is the best compromise that could have been gotten under the 
circumstances.
  Had I had the opportunity to write this Conference Report, Mr. 
Speaker, I would have written it differently. I am inexorably opposed 
to the fact that, as I understand it, this Conference Report uses 
funding from certain Veterans disability payments for smoking related 
ailments to help pay for the bill. I am ashamed

[[Page H3957]]

that this had to occur and pledge to work with my colleagues in the 
House to do all we can to restore this cut.
  But my support for this Conference Report is based, in no small 
measure, on the fact that for my constituents in the Virgin Islands, 
this Conference Report and the funds that it will provide, will mean 
that we will be able to go forward with many of the important road 
projects which are so critically important to our economy.
  In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I want to also thank Mr. Rahall for his 
work on this Conference Report and his assistance in making sure that 
the U.S. offshore areas were treated equitably in this bill. I urge my 
colleagues to support passage of this bill.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on 
H.R. 2400 which is before the House. First, I want to give credit to 
the dean of the Oregon delegation, Peter DeFazio, for his good work 
attending the needs of Oregon and the entire Pacific Northwest. He has 
been a source or guidance and support since I was elected in 1992, and 
I will miss working with him in Congress. My colleague from across the 
Willamette River, Mr. Blumenauer, has also worked hard on behalf of our 
region and deserves credit for his efforts on this bill.
  This bill invests in our nation's future because it makes our 
intermodal transportation needs a propriety for the next six years. I 
am lucky to represent a beautiful part of the country that is a 
national model for incorporating effective land-use planning in our 
long-term transportation plans. Oregon's future, a vision with less 
traffic and vibrant commerce, depends in no small part on regional and 
state land use decisions, as well as federal support. In my district 
and across the state, decisions emphasize corridor and zoning planning 
and are predicated on an integrated transportation system. Ultimately, 
transit and road networks work hand-in-hand to continue what we believe 
is an unparalleled quality of life. We are fortunate in Oregon, and 
this conference report helps us continue our innovations at the state 
level.
  I am pleased that the bill today authorizes completion of the 
Westside Light Rail project, one of my top priorities in Congress for 
the last six years. The Westside Light Rail project needs an 
appropriation of $36.6 million to be completed on time this year, and 
this legislation authorizes those funds. I am also pleased that this 
bill includes $3.5 million to obtain standard fixed-route buses for 
services increases associated with the opening of the Westside Light 
Rail project in September. In addition, BESTEA includes authorization 
of the South-North Light Rail project, a key part of our region's 2040 
long-term transportation plan.
  While this bill includes our region's important light rail and 
transit priorities, it also includes a number of other projects that 
are so important to the future of my district. It includes planning 
funding for the Tualatin-Sherwood Bypass and the Newberg-Dundee Bypass. 
I have worked to gain federal support for the Newberg-Dundee Bypass for 
four years, and am pleased that it will finally receive some funding 
under this bill. I hope the state and the entire region will follow 
suit and finally realize how important the Newberg-Dundee Bypass is to 
Yamhill County's future.
  This legislation also includes nearly $3 million to help Astoria, 
including funding to prepare for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. It 
will allow for improvements at two intersections along Highway 101 
which have chronic safety problems, as well as provide seed money for a 
future intermodal transportation center. This bill also includes 
funding to reopen the Astoria Railroad Line, a vital transportation 
connection to the Port of Astoria. It is my hope that these funds will 
help create jobs in Astoria and prepare for the upcoming Lewis and 
Clark celebration.
  I am also pleased that this bill includes funding for two highway 
projects in Washington County, one of the fastest growing regions in 
the entire Pacific Northwest. It includes funding to upgrade the I-5/
Highway 217 Kruseway Interchange which is a constant source of traffic 
headaches for motorists in our region, as well as funding to improve 
commuter access and widen the Murray Road Overpass. These projects will 
greatly enhance access and safety in two critical commercial centers in 
my district.
  Finally, the BESTEA conference report includes two important 
legislative provisions that I have been working on over the last year. 
As Co-Chair of the Diabetes Caucus, I worked with my colleague, Mr. 
Nethercutt, to overturn a 28-year-old Federal Highway Administration 
prohibition on people with insulin-dependent diabetes operating 
commercial vehicles in interstate commerce. This legislation takes 
steps to reverse this discriminatory regulation. In addition, this 
conference report includes technical language I authored in the 
Commerce Committee to reinstate an exemption from the National Highway 
and Traffic Safety Administration's vehicle importation regulations for 
vehicles imported for show or display. I am pleased that these 
provisions are included in the final conference report.
  I thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar for their hard 
work on this legislation. Once again, I want to express gratitude on 
behalf of all my constituents to Oregon's members of the Committee, Mr. 
DeFazio and Mr. Blumenauer, as well as their staff members Kathie 
Eastman and Elizabeth Humphrey. I urge my colleagues to support passage 
of the conference report.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the historic 
transportation bill being reported out of conference today. This bill 
will provide badly needed assistance to communities across the country 
struggling to maintain and repair the transportation infrastructure 
which is the lifeblood of our nation's social and commercial 
activities.
  I commend the conferees for including the Disadvantaged Business 
Enterprise program in this bill. This affirmative action program for 
contractors in the transportation industry will ensure that all 
Americans have an opportunity to participate in the construction and 
other activities envisioned by this legislation. The Disadvantaged 
Business Enterprise Program, also known as the DBE program, is fair, 
constitutional and, most importantly, it works. It is a tribute to the 
Congress that it is included in the bill before us.
  Despite ample evidence that the DBE program is necessary and 
effective, there are still some who apparently wish to ignore the need 
for this program. Along with the House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee report accompanying this bill, nine members of 
this body filed additional views in which they criticized the DBE 
program and expressed their view that it is not needed. The fact is, 
however, that I, and the majority of my colleagues, disagree with this 
assessment. If we did not, the DBE program would not be included in 
this bill.
  The authors of the House committee's additional views made several 
serious factual misstatements. The most serious misstatement is that 
there is no evidence of discrimination in the transportation 
construction industry before the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. This could not be more false. The fact is that there is 
a raft of evidence of discrimination in the transportation construction 
industry--and many related industries. Moreover, much of this evidence 
has been formally presented to Congress. In order to set the record 
straight, I want to make sure that my colleagues are aware of at least 
some of the volumes of evidence of the persistence of discrimination. 
It is beyond the scope of a brief floor statement to detail all of the 
evidence that exists with respect to discrimination, but I must mention 
at least some of the most important and probative evidence.
  Evidence of Discrimination Presented to Congress:
  In the Additional Views section of the House committee report 
entitled ``Additional Challenges'', the authors contend that based upon 
existing case law, the DBE program raises significant constitutional 
questions for the following reasons:
  (1) No evidence was presented to the Committee that actual 
discrimination has occurred within the transportation construction 
industry;
  (2) No evidence has been presented that race neutral remedies were 
attempted and found deficient;
  (3) No evidence was presented justifying the program on a nationwide 
basis;
  (4) No statistical evaluations have been presented justifying the 
program in any given market; and
  (5) No evidence has been presented justifying the fact that the 
program does not include a procedure for individualized inquiries into 
whether a particular DBE has suffered from past discrimination.
  The first four claims are similar to claims made by Adarand 
Constructors before the district court after the Adarand case was 
remanded from the Supreme Court. The court rejected these contentions 
when it stated that Congress had a compelling government interest in 
adopting the statutory provisions that support the DBE program. 
Consistent with current precedent, the court agreed that Congress had a 
unique role as a national legislature which permitted it to address 
nationwide problems with nationwide legislation. The court also found 
that Congress had considered the use of race-neutral measures before 
adopting the statutory provisions supporting the DBE program. The fifth 
claim ignores the provisions in the current DBE regulation that permit 
challenges by a third party to the certification of a DBE as 
disadvantaged. Furthermore DOT's proposed rules revise the current 
regulation to include an even more rigorous certification of 
disadvantage.
  In the Adarand remand, the district court reviewed an extensive 
record of hearings, reports, testimony and statistics that had been 
presented to Congress in the twenty years since Congress first amended 
the Small Business Act in 1978 in order to provide that small 
businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals 
have the

[[Page H3958]]

``maximum practicable opportunity'' to participate in federal contracts 
and subcontracts. That record included material from the time period 
when Congress first enacted a 10% goal for disadvantaged business 
enterprises in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act in 1982, 
through the continuation of the DBE program in 1987 in the Surface 
Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (STURAA) and its 
renewal in 1991 in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
(ISTEA). The court noted that on numerous occasions Congress had 
received testimony and evidence, as well as annual reports from the 
Small Business Administration, regarding the discriminatory barriers 
faced by minority businesses and the continuing need for remedial 
efforts to address such discrimination. The court concluded that this 
record met the constitutional standard by providing a ``strong basis 
in evidence'' from which Congress could conclude that significant 
discriminatory barriers faced minority businesses.

  The Department of Justice highlighted the extensive number of 
hearings held by Congress on the subject to racial discrimination and 
minority businesses when it published in the Federal Register. ``The 
Compelling Interest for Affirmative Action in Federal Procurement: A 
Preliminary Survey'' as an appendix to Proposed Reforms to Affirmative 
Action in Federal Procurement (DOJ Appendix). 61 Fed. Reg. 26042 (May 
23, 1996). At that time, Justice identified at least 29 hearings on 
this subject between 1980 and 1995. Congress has continued to hold 
hearings on this issue and an update of this list shows an additional 
eleven Congressional hearings through the end of 1997 on the same 
issue.
  Some of the testimony that has been offered most recently is very 
relevant to the DBE program. While there have been a great many 
statements on the subject, I will quote only one here. On April 30, 
1996, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Deval L. Patrick, 
testified before the Committee on Education and Labor about the ongoing 
need for affirmative action. In his testimony he discussed many types 
of discrimination but his comments about discrimination against 
minority and women entrepreneurs is especially important in this 
context. Mr. Patrick stated:
  Congress has repeatedly reviewed and supported the SBA's program, as 
well as those of some other agencies, such as the Department of 
Transportation, to aid small and disadvantaged businesses. In doing so, 
Congress recognized the need to help such firms combat the effects 
discrimination has had on their ability to develop in our economy. A 
few facts demonstrates Congress's wisdom.
  While minorities make up over 20 percent of the population, minority-
owned businesses are only 9 percent of all U.S. businesses (U.S. 
Commission on Minority Business Development, Final Report 2-6 (1992)). 
The minority-owned firms that do exist have, on average, gross receipts 
that are only about one-third those of nonminority firms (id. at 4). 
Similar inequities apply to women-owned businesses. Women own nearly 20 
percent of all businesses with employees and a third of all small 
businesses but received less than 3 percent of federal procurement 
contract dollars in 1994 (Expanding Business Opportunities for Women, 
The 1995 Report of the Interagency Committee on Women's Business 
Enterprise, at 3, 11, January 1996; see also 1992 Survey of Women-Owned 
Businesses. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1996)).
  Discrimination in the critical ability to secure necessary capital 
persists; white business owners in the construction industry receive 
over 50 times as many loan dollars per dollar of equity capital as 
African American owners with identical borrowing characteristics (Grown 
& Bates, Commercial Bank Lending Practices and the Development of Black 
Owned Construction Companies Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 14, No. 1, 
34 (1992)). Recent studies have shown that limited access to capital 
has had a simiarly negative affect on firms owned by women, and that 
due to that lessened access to capital more women than men finance 
businesses out of their own resources (Expanding Business Opportunities 
for Women at 8).

  Discrimination occurs in both private and public contracting. 
Disparity studies completed by state and local governments after the 
Croson decision routinely found that minority-owned businesses are 
locked out of public contracting markets. After the Croson decision, 
many states suspended affirmative action business program, with a 
devastating effect on minority business. In Richmond, in the absence of 
affirmative action, minority participation in construction dropped from 
40 percent of all contracts to less than 3 percent (U.S. Commission on 
Minority Business Development, Final Report at 99 (1992)). Similar 
falloffs occurred in Philadelphia (97% decline), Tampa (99% decline for 
African American-owned businesses and 50% for Hispanics), and San Jose 
(minority participation fell from 6 percent to 1 percent in prime 
construction contracts) (ibid).
  In private industry, discrimination is even more pronounced. Both 
minority and women-owned firms report that they are routinely unable to 
secure subcontracts on private work where there are no affirmative 
action requirements, and that white owned prime contractors even reject 
minority or women-owned firms that offer the lowest bid.''
  Beyond the record of various Congressional hearings, there is further 
evidence supporting Congress' determination to continue to use of the 
DBE program. In 1992, the Final Report of the U.S. Commission on 
Minority Business Development concluded that the severe under 
representation of minorities in business was caused by discrimination 
and benign neglect. The Small Business Administration's State of Small 
Business report in 1994 stated that in 1992, minorities owned 9% of all 
business, but only received 4.1% of federal contracting dollars. The 
1992 Economic Census: Survey of Minority-owned Business Enterprises 
published in 1996 by the Department of Commerce revealed a similar 
ratio of minority owned construction firms to receipts for such firms. 
In 1994, the House Committee on Government Operations found that 
minority-owned firms face particular difficulties in the construction 
industry which is dominated by ``old buddy'' networks and family firms 
and tends to exclude minority firms. H.R. Rep. No. 870, 103d Cong., 2d 
Sess. (1994).
  The DOJ Appendix described in some detail the discriminatory barriers 
to minority contracting opportunities, evidence of which is found in 
studies and reports issued by congressional committees, executive 
branch commissions, academic researchers and state and local 
governments. Such evidence demonstrates that discrimination works to 
preclude minorities from obtaining the capital needed to form and 
develop a business because of discrimination by trade unions and 
employers as well as lenders and that minority firms are denied full 
and fair contracting opportunities because of discrimination by private 
sector customers, prime contractors, business networks, suppliers and 
bonding companies. As described in the DOJ appendix, much of this 
evidence has been presented to Congress and has been the subject of 
Congressional hearings, particularly in the area of discrimination by 
lenders and surety bonding companies.

  Additional Evidence:
  The fact of the matter is that there is a great deal of additional 
evidence that is available to Congress in less formal forms. Every day 
each of us receives evidence of national needs from our constituents 
and from studies and articles we discover in our efforts to represent 
those who elected us. Some of this evidence is not presented formally 
in hearings or Congressional reports--but it is evidence all the same 
and it informs the work we do. I do not have time here to outline all 
of the evidence of discrimination in transportation construction that 
has come to my attention, but I would like to mention a few of the more 
recent studies and writings. Perhaps the most important source of 
information comes to us from the numerous disparity studies that have 
been completed in communities across this Nation. Over one hundred and 
fifty of these studies have been completed and many have dealt with 
transportation construction contracting. I will describe just a few of 
these studies and their conclusions here.
  A study of the historical record of minority and women-owned business 
enterprises in public and private contracting in New Jersey submitted 
to NJ Transit and the Governor's Study Commission on Discrimination in 
Public Works Procurement and Construction Contracts by the Afro-
American Studies Program of the University of Maryland at College Park 
in August of 1992 states: ``Despite extraordinary efforts to promote 
equal opportunity in employment and other areas of social and economic 
life in New Jersey, significant inequalities remain. One persistent 
area of inequality is business ownership. Many minority group members 
and women lack access to key channels for entry into business 
ownership. Some of these blocked paths are the direct result of 
specific policies by the state in the past to favor white-owned firms 
or the indirect result of inaction on the part of the state to prevent 
discrimination that ultimately has resulted in an underutilization of 
the potential business talents of women and minority citizens of New 
Jersey. The record of these actions and inactions . . . strongly 
supports the (re-) introduction of race- and gender-specific remedies 
to fulfill the state's own constitutional mandate to promote equality 
of opportunity to all its citizens.'' (NJ Transit, University of 
Maryland at College Park study at 32.)
  A study of the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction 
for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts performed by D.J. Miller and 
Associates (DJMA) in March of 1994 states that ``there is ample 
evidence of discrimination against African Americans, Latinos, other 
minority groups, and women.'' In addition, the report's executive 
summary states that ``[t]he information revealed in the disparity study 
leads

[[Page H3959]]

DJMA to conclude that a sufficient inference of discrimination can be 
made from this factual predicate to warrant the implementation of a 
race-conscious procurement program.'' (DJ Miller study at ES11.)
  A study of the Fort Worth, Texas Transportation Authority by Browne, 
Bortz and Coddintgton (BBC) issued in November of 1993 concludes that 
``[t]he combined quantitative and qualitative evidence of 
discrimination against minority and woman-owned firms forms a 
sufficient factual predicate for remedial action by the Fort Worth 
Transportation Authority. Race and gender-neutral remedies should be 
considered, but the study team concludes that they alone will not be 
sufficient to fully remedy the effects of past and present 
discrimination. Therefore, a basis exists for the Transportation 
Authority to consider narrowly-tailored race and gender-based 
remedies.'' (BBC, Fort Worth Transportation Authority study, at ES11.)
  Of course, disparity studies are only one source of data about 
discrimination. One recent report also deserves special mention because 
it deals exclusively with affirmative action in public contracting and 
because a summary of this report was sent to every member of Congress. 
in late 1996, the Urban Institute released Do Minority Owned Businesses 
get a Fair Share of Government Contracts? The Answer to the question 
posed by the study was a resounding ``no.'' The report was based upon 
the evidence contained in 58 disparity studies commissioned by various 
state and local governments and demonstrated wide statistical 
disparities between the share of contract dollars actually received by 
minority- and women-owned firms and the share those firms should have 
received. These disparities are very important evidence. In the Croson 
decision the Supreme Court made clear that ``gross statistical 
disparities'' will be considered ``prima facie proof of a pattern or 
practice of discrimination'' in contracting.
  The report found that minority firms received only 57 cents for every 
dollar they would be expected to receive based upon their availability. 
While this statistic is shocking, it should be no surprise to those of 
us in Congress who for years have been hearing evidence of the 
discrimination against women and minority entrepreneurs. For specific 
facial groups the disparities were even greater: African-American-owned 
firms received only 49 cents on the dollar, Latino-owned firms received 
44 cents on the dollar, Asian-American owned firms received 39 cents on 
the dollar and Native American-owned firms received 18 cents on the 
dollar. In addition the report found that women-owned firms received 
only 29 cents of every dollar they would be expected to receive based 
upon their availability.
  The report also provided information about the disparities in 
construction contracting, work which quite often includes 
transportation construction contracting. In the construction arena 
minorities received only 61 cents for every dollar they should have 
received given their availability. Women received only 48 cents on the 
dollar. The statistics were even more disheartening for certain 
minority groups. For instance, African American owned firms received 
only 56 cents for every dollar they would be expected to receive based 
on their availability--Asian owned firms received only 60 cents on the 
dollar.
  What we must all remember is that these statistics--disturbing as 
they are--represent a world in which there are the kinds of affirmative 
action programs that some would have us end. Without affirmative 
efforts like the DBE program, the situation would be far worse. 
For example, the Urban Institute report found that the disparities 
between minority- and women- owned firms and other firms were more 
pronounced in areas in which no affirmative action contracting program 
was in place. When only areas and years in which affirmative action is 
not in place are considered, the percentage of awards to women falls 
from 29 percent of what would be expected in 24 percent. For African 
Americans the percentages dropped from 49 percent to 22 percent, for 
Latinos the percentage dropped from 44 percent to 26 percent, for 
Asians from 39 percent to 13 percent, and for native Americans from 18 
percent to 4 percent. These figures clearly show that affirmative 
action programs are not only effective, but they are also still 
desperately needed.

  Statistical evidence--the primary focus of the Urban Institute 
report--must be considered in combination with other social science 
evidence and anecdotal evidence provided by those involved in the 
contracting process. In addition to documenting statistical 
disparities, the Urban Institute report reviewed the social science 
literature and the disparity studies to determine the challenges 
confronted by disadvantaged firms.
  The study notes that the social science literature reveals several 
areas in which minorities may confront barriers in their efforts to 
form businesses. Firsts the study notes that minorities tend to have 
lower incomes, less wealth, and limited access to financial markets. A 
second area of disadvantage involves minorities' limited access to 
business networks and the relative lack of family members who are self-
employed or run a business. Minorities may also be disadvantaged by 
lower levels of educational attainment and less experience in business 
relative to their white counterparts. The report also notes that 
minority firms may face limited access to wealthier white customers due 
to discrimination by white customers and residential segregation.
  Finally, the study points out that the individual disparity studies 
contain a huge number of anecdotes about discrimination. According to 
the study, barriers early in the contracting process may include: 
failure of the government to break down large contracts into smaller 
components which could increase the participation of smaller minority-
owned firms; restricting affirmative action solely to subcontracting 
and thus limiting the opportunity of minority firms to work as prime 
contractors; abuse of good faith waivers; and inadequate prosecution of 
``front'' firms. Barriers during the bid solicitation stage include: 
use of closed or private requests for bids; failure to advertise bids 
in minority media; failure to notify minority firms of bidding 
opportunities; provision of incomplete bid specification information to 
minority firms; and untimely notification of minority firms of bidding 
opportunities. Barriers during the evaluation of bids include: 
discrimination in pricing by suppliers; ``bid shopping;'' and 
renegotiating specific projects in order to manipulate the process in 
favor a majority firms. Finally, the report notes that there is 
anecdotal evidence of barriers during the actual execution of contracts 
including: exclusion of minority firms by prime contractors after 
contracts have been awarded; slow payment of amounts owed to minority 
firms; and project sabotage.
  The bottom line is this: there is a vast amount of evidence of 
discrimination against minority and women owned firms in America. This 
evidence exists in both the transportation construction arena, and in 
markets (such as finance and bonding) which are directly related to the 
construction industry. All of this evidence provides this Congress with 
a compelling interest to address discrimination through the enactment 
of the Disadvantaged Business Program.

  Other Errors in the Additional Views
  Finally, I cannot complete this statement without noting the 
misleading pattern of factual misstatements and omissions in the 
Additional Views in the House committee report filed by my 
distinguished colleagues. The section of the views entitled ``History 
of the DBE Program'' obscures the fact that the Department of 
Transportation has proposed extensive changes to its own program 
regulations to improve and strengthen the DBE program. Some of the 
regulations referred in this section are not DOT's regulations, but 
instead regulations issued by the Small Business Administration. 
Moreover, the Additional Views represents these SBA regulations as 
final and they are not. The SBA regulations issued in August of 1997 
are proposed regulations which have not yet been finalized. The 
Department of Transportation's proposed regulations were issued in May 
of 1997.
  The section of the Additional Views entitled ``Effect of the Adarand 
Court Decisions'' states that the courts have made it clear that 
federal affirmative action programs ``must be restructured to provide 
targeted remedies to only those who have been the victims of specific 
discrimination.'' This assertion is incorrect. Seven of the nine 
Justices recognized ``the unhappy persistence of both the practice and 
the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups 
in this country'' [emphasis added] and reaffirmed the government's 
authority to address this problem. The majority opinion in Adarand is 
consistent with the longstanding understanding of affirmative action 
programs that, when members of a group have been discriminated against 
on the basis of their race, then members of that group may benefit from 
affirmative action measures even if they themselves have not made 
specific showings of injury due to discrimination. The assertion made 
in the Additional Views, that individual members of racial groups may 
benefit from affirmative action only if they prove that they themselves 
have suffered discrimination, was simply not the position of the Court.
  In order to be correct, the section entitled ``Challenge to the 
Subcontracting Compensation Clause'' should note that the 
subcontracting compensation clause provision was not implemented to 
comply with the DBE program as asserted in the second sentence of this 
paragraph, instead it was developed to comply with the contracting 
requirements of the Small Business Act. Moreover, the argument made 
before the Tenth Circuit was not that the program should be evaluated 
under ``lenient'' scrutiny, but under the ``intermediate scrutiny'' 
standard which had been upheld by the Supreme Court prior to its 
decision in Adarand.
  In the section entitled ``Application of the Strict Scrutiny 
Standard'' the Additional Views

[[Page H3960]]

state: ``[c]ase law stipulates that the only compelling governmental 
interest for race preference if the remedying of past discrimination.'' 
This statement is flatly incorrect. First of all, the Court has clearly 
held that the government has a compelling interest in addressing not 
only past discrimination, but also present discrimination. Second, 
there are also suggestions in the case law that diversity may 
constitute a compelling government interest for the use of race-based 
affirmative action measures in certain contexts such as higher 
education.

  In this same section, my nine distinguished colleagues repeat the 
completely untrue assertion that the Sultan of Brunei would qualify for 
the DBE program. The presumptions of social and economic disadvantage 
under the DBE program are rebuttable, not absolute. The Department of 
Transportation maintains a system under which any person, whether or 
not they are directly involved in the DBE program may challenge the 
certification of a firm as a DBE. The existing rule has a specific 
procedure to accomplish this. Moreover, the proposed rule would 
institute a mechanism to make challenges easier to bring and would 
allow recipients to hold an application in abeyance while deciding a 
challenge. If the Sultan of Brunei--or anyone with substantial wealth--
were ever erroneously certified as a DBE, the Department would take 
steps to decertify that firm. The Department has taken such steps in 
the past, and will undoubtable do so in the future. Opponents of this 
program are simply wrong when they state that the Sultan of Brunei 
qualifies for the DBE program. He does not. Moreover, the proposed 
regulations issued by the Department of Transportation would impose 
even tighter restrictions on the economic status of DBE owners by 
imposing a personal net worth test.
  A similar--but even more misleading--point is made in the section 
entitled ``Additional Concerns Regarding the Presumption of Economic 
Disadvantage.'' Here, the Additional Views quotes the Department's 
proposed regulations in a grossly inaccurate way. Quoting two sentences 
as if they appear consecutively in the rule, the section complains that 
the Department is not doing anything to economically target the 
benefits of the program. In truth, the section is worse than 
misleading--it intentionally omits the intervening sentence which 
clearly changes the focus and meaning of the paragraph:
  ``However, in order to have relevant information to enable them to 
make determinations about whether there should be inquiry into the 
disadvantage of applicants, the applicants would have to submit a 
signed certification that they are socially and economically 
disadvantaged and a brief summary statement of their personal net 
worth, which the recipient would have to keep confidential.'' (Federal 
Register Vol. 62, No. 104, May 30, 1997, page 29565.)
  The import of this sentence, which the authors of the Additional 
Views apparently wanted to obscure, is that the Department is taking 
action to ensure that recipients have the information necessary to be 
certain that only those who are truly economically disadvantaged 
benefit from the DBE program.
  The section entitled ``Houston Metro'' is also misleading. The 
Department of Transportation has worked hard to collaborate with 
Houston Metro to find a workable solution to the problem caused there 
by the court case brought by the Houston Contractors Association. In 
fact, in a recent hearing a distinguished member of the Republican 
leadership who represents Houston, commended the Administrator of the 
Federal Transit Administration, Gordon J. Linton, for the 
``cooperation'' and ``creative'' efforts made by the Department in 
responding to the Houston situation. It is important to understand that 
despite having twice filed motions to intervene, the Department of 
Transportation is not a party to the case involving Houston Metro. 
Despite this, the Department has assisted Houston Metro in developing a 
race-neutral program to replace its DBE program during the pendency of 
the injunction. In addition, the Department recently extended the 
exemption it has provided to Houston Metro until October 31, 1998 in 
order to ensure that funds continue to flow and projects are not 
unnecessarily disrupted while Houston appeals the district court's 
decision.
  Finally, the paragraph entitled ``Monterey Mechanical'' does not 
belong in a Committee report expressing views on a federal affirmative 
action program. The Monterey Mechanical case does not address the DBE 
program--in fact it does not address any federal program. It is not a 
case based upon the Supreme Court's holding in Adarand, but instead 
deals with the Court's opinion in Croson and the recent enactment of 
Proposition 209 which is relevant only to California. Similarly, in the 
section entitled ``Additional Challenges'' the vast majority of the 
cases referred to do not deal with the Department of Transportation's 
DBE program. In fact, most of the cases listed appear to deal with 
state and local program, not federal programs.
  I thank my colleagues for their attention to those important issues. 
The fact of the matter is this: affirmative action and equal 
opportunity are far too important to be left to the mercy of political 
rhetoric masquerading as legislative history. The existence of 
discrimination in the transportation construction industry in this 
nation is clear--and the legislative record should be clear as well.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2400, the BESTEA 
Conference Report. This legislation represents an important step in 
revitalizing our national infrastructure.
  H.R. 2400 contains a number of provisions that are of special concern 
to my constituents. I am pleased that adequate funding was included for 
these proposals, of particular interest are the Phalen Corridor 
Initiative and the Shepard Road Upper Landing Interceptor Project.
  The Phalen Corridor Initiative is a congressionally designated 
project in BESTEA. This Initiative is an innovative infrastructure 
project. The Initiative is an excellent example of what BESTEA is all 
about, a multipurpose intermodal system that will help revitalize the 
east side of St. Paul and carry the Minnesota urban transportation 
network into the 21st century.
  The Phalen Corridor Initiative presents an opportunity to position 
the Twin Cities area and the State of Minnesota at the forefront of 
innovative transportation development efforts. The Initiative has 
already been recognized as ``a model for urban renewal.'' The Phalen 
Corridor Initiative also emphasizes the role of infrastructure plays on 
the overall health of our national economy, environment and community 
development. The 4,000 jobs will likely result which are expected to 
achieve a $7 million annual reduction in public assistance expenses 
putting people to work. This Phalen Initiative is built within the 
framework of a dramatically changing industrial and railway core and 
will revitalize bootstrapping a new vibrant economic development and 
importantly reinforcing existing manufacturing business and job 
housing, and the recreation amenities which are a vital part of such 
interfaces.
  The Shepard Road Upper Landing Interceptor Project initiative is a 
multimodal transportation interceptor project. Included within this 
project is a multimodal facility to accommodate public and private 
transit service, pedestrian pathways between the Mississippi River and 
downtown St. Paul, a bicycle hub for commuters and recreational riders, 
a ride sharing hub and a bus staging and dispatching area for busses 
serving visitors to the immediately adjacent St. Paul Civic Center, 
Science Museum of Minnesota and downtown St. Paul cultural attractions.
  The Shepard Road Upper Landing Interceptor Project site is a gateway 
site critical to the redevelopment of the five mile segment of 
Mississippi riverfront which is the focus of a multi-year redevelopment 
strategy.
   Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2400 also contains an important compromise on a 
national wilderness area in Minnesota, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area 
Wilderness (BWCAW). The BWCAW, the most popular wilderness in our 
entire wilderness system, has regrettably been the target of 
controversy and attacks over the past four years. Legislation has been 
introduced to increase the number of motorboats allowed in the 
wilderness; to remotorize three portages; to keep open the portion of 
Sea Gull Lake now scheduled to be closure next year and to turn over to 
a locally dominated board the management of this national treasure.
  In light of the anti-environmental record of the Republican Majority 
Congress over the past four years, these proposals in my mind's eye 
represent a very real threat to the BWCAW. While some of the more 
egregious proposals have been dropped, the House and Senate were poised 
to act on legislation that would reopen three portages and maintain 
over 2,100 motorboats on 3,000 plus acres of Sea Gull Lake. Passage on 
such legislation was highly probable and would have delivered a 
devastating blow to the BWCAW resource.
  Against this backdrop, I fortunately reached a good-faith agreement 
with Congressman Oberstar on the BWCAW. We have differed on this issue 
and the policy path and the loan for over two decades. My primary 
concern is protecting the BWCA wilderness to the maximum extend 
possible. This compromise accomplishes such goal. Under the agreement, 
Four Mile Portage will not be motorized and effective January 1, 1999, 
most of Sea Gull Lake, and all of Alder, and Canoe Lakes will be closed 
to motorboats. That represents over 3,000 acres of lake surface 
permanently closed to over 2,100 motorboats and an agreement which 
defuses the motor portage issue which unresolved promised continued 
polarization and attacks that would in the final analysis seriously 
damage the BWCAW resource.
  As the Forest Service implements this agreement, they should look to 
the Resources Committee positive actions this year on H.R. 1739. During 
the consideration of this measure, amendments were adopted to insure 
that only those portages that were motorized in

[[Page H3961]]

1992 can be motorized under this compromise; that limits motorized 
portages solely to trucks and trailers and not to other commercial 
operations and importantly to prevent federal subsidies from private 
portage services. The Forest Service should most certainly look to 
these provisions in determining Congressional intent.
   Mr. Speaker, the BWCAW has been the subject of extensive debate and 
numerous hearings in Minnesota and Washington, D.C. over the past four 
years, including Subcommittee and Committee deliberations. While I 
would have preferred a different process, the BWCAW process is far more 
open than the homogenized budget, tax, authorization and spending 
measures that are so commonplace over the past four years. I support 
this provision of H.R. 2400.
   Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred that this BWCAW issue not be 
addressed in this forum, but the policy has been the product of open 
debate and extensive hearings the past four years and a flash point for 
much longer--the criticism of the process belies the merit of this 
compromise which reduces the number of motor boats in wilderness and 
keeps on track the nearly 3,000 acres of Sea Gull Lake, over 2,000 
motor boat permits a year out of wilderness--at the same time 
permitting 2 portages to be motorized the equivalent of 274 days of 
motor use between lakes which are all permitted to have motor boat use 
and the number of permits will not go up regards this circumstance and 
change furthermore they are almost all being used today some at over 
100% utilization.
  The measure before the House H.R. 2400 represents a positive use of 
the gas tax revenue.
  A major problem arises because the 1993 budget anticipated that the 
increase of 4.3 cents was for deficit reduction. The Congress 
determined later to transfer the money to the highway trust fund that 
means that over a five or six year period that we will experience an 
overall budget short fall. This deficit and the outlay budget issue is 
further complicated by the fact that over economic projections haven't 
been updated.
  I certainly hope that the dire predictions being espoused by some 
today do not come to pass and believe that we can avert some of this 
problem. No doubt that some of the earmarked projects in this measure 
will raise questions and should, but all each of us can do is point to 
the screening procedure and the hearings that most were subject to 
through the House committee.
  Importantly this will provide significant funds for our state 
regarding highways and transit, this will provide an unprecedented 
amount of funds for these purposes and flexibility to the states and 
local communities to make the decisions as to the expenditure 
priorities of such funds raised by the national government. Also 
provided are continued commitment of funds for enhancement programs and 
mitigation programs, the goal is to help innovative expenditure of 
transportation including bike path trail purchases and other amenities 
that have become a very important program in our communities and the 
mitigation funding which reduces congestion, erects sound barriers, 
limit adverse impacts on our air quality. These programs attempt to 
address the full impact of motor vehicle traffic upon our environment 
and rectify and limit the adverse health consequences.
  In any legislative matter this comprehensive we are faced with many 
policies that deserve more attention, indeed there are budget, 
authorization, tax and direct mandated spending provisions which cut 
across many topics which are not recognized as solely surface 
transportation. We could all find the basis to severely criticize this 
procedure and vote against such a measure but the good in this measure 
certainly out weighs the short comings within it.
  I'm voting for this in good faith and with the needs of my state and 
people in mind. We will be here the next four months and with the 
mandate of the people some may well return for another term. This isn't 
a perfect bill but its a good measure and I believe moves forward about 
as well as we can in the current political environment.
  Support H.R. 2400 today and let us keep working for better policy in 
the future.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report to H.R. 2400, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation 
Equity Act (BESTEA) of 1998.
  This Act takes us yet one step closer to an important goal: Putting 
trust back into the Highway Trust Fund. For too many years, the taxes 
American motorists pay at the pump have been siphoned off from their 
intended uses to be used for other federal programs. Worthy though 
those programs may be, the fact is, hard working Americans have been 
deceived about how the money they pay at the pump is being used. 
Fortunately, this bill contains a guarantee that motor fuels taxes be 
used to fund roads, bridges, and mass transits.
  Because Congress is honoring this commitment, we have been able to 
dedicate more funding to important transportation priorities. Those 
priorities include safety and development programs in addition to 
general allocation to the States. On the subject of State allocations, 
I think my colleagues in the House would agree that the conferees 
deserve praise for balancing the disparate needs and desires of the 50 
states.
  As always is the case with highway funding bills, regionalism plays a 
large role than partisanship with forming coalitions. In this case, I 
would say we have struck an agreeable, if not a perfect compromise that 
will allow each of our States to continue to maintain and build our 
surface transportation networks.
  Certainly this is the case for States like South Dakota. As you are 
aware, Mr. Speaker, and Chairman Shuster is aware, I was less than 
satisfied with the funding formula contained in H.R, 2400. Along with 
several of my colleagues from Western States, I attempted to amend H.R. 
2400 in order to recognize the unique needs of sparsely populated 
States. That amendment, unfortunately, was not accepted by the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the funding formula was 
not amended to our satisfaction. However, I believe it clearly defined 
our concerns and shed light on our expectations that there be more 
funding made available to States like South Dakota that have miles of 
highways but lack the population base to adequately fund those roads. 
As a result, we have a bill before us now that recognizes the need for 
a national transportation system and a national system of highways.
  It is true that each State and the citizens of each State bear a 
great deal of the responsibility in meeting their own transportation 
needs. If each State were solely responsible for funding its 
transportation, we would be ignoring an irrefutable fact: In order for 
goods and services to move from Boston and Seattle, they must pass 
through States like South Dakota. Consequently, people on the Coasts, 
on the National borders, and in urban centers, use these roads and have 
an interest in seeing that they are safe for travel. Though it does not 
provide the funding I would prefer, the bill before us does provide a 
level of funding that will help ensure middle America allows all areas 
of the Nation to be connected.
  This accomplishment is the result of the hard work of my colleagues 
who were appointed to the conference committee to negotiate the 
differences between the House and Senate. Rep. Don Young of Alaska, one 
of the conferees, certainly understood my concerns. As an At-Large 
Representative, I was pleased to see that he was named to the 
conference to work for the interests of sparsely populated but 
geographically large states like ours.
  This bill also is the result of many hours of hard work 
and dedication of those behind the scenes, including the staff of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This bill also is the 
product of the hard work of the men and women at the South Dakota 
Department of Transportation (SDDOT), who under the direction of 
Governor William Janklow, Secretary Ronald Wheeler, and Assistant 
Secretary Jim Jensen, provided invaluable information. And without any 
question, I and my staff owe much to Richard Howard, SDDOT Director of 
Intergovernmental Relations. Their hard work helped to ensure the 
members of this body understood the importance of maintaining a fair 
formula for South Dakota. They also helped develop important provisions 
of this bill. I would also like to recognize the hard work put into 
this legislation by my Legislative Director, Jafar Karim. He put in 
many long hours on behalf of the people of South Dakota.

  One provision of particular importance with help South Dakota meet 
transit, rural air service, and rail safety needs. The provision will 
give South Dakota and other States not served by Amtrak the flexibility 
to use funds made available under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 for 
the State's highest transportation priorities. I would like to thank 
Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer, and the conferees for the revenue 
title of this bill, Rep. Kenny Hulshof and Rep. Jim Nussle, for their 
support of this provision.
  I also want to commend the gentleman from Missouri and the gentleman 
from Iowa for preserving and protecting the ethanol tax incentives 
through the year 2007. Though South Dakota and other corn producing 
States may best understand the benefits of these provisions, the entire 
Nation benefits from ethanol being a part of our fuel options.
  Chairman Shuster and Chairman Petri also deserve thanks for their 
support of priority projects I submitted on behalf of the State of 
South Dakota. Through this process, South Dakotans will have a new 
opportunity to build four lane highways to some of the State's trade 
centers, such as Aberdeen, Huron, Mitchell, Pierre, and Rapid City. As 
I have previously stated for the Record, these four lanes are the 
combined vision of former Senator Francis Case and the late Governor 
George S. Mickelson. These two South Dakota leaders saw the value of 
connecting our

[[Page H3962]]

major population centers to Interstate 90 and Interstate 29 via four-
lane highways. I am proud to carry forward that vision.
  I also am pleased that the conference granted my request that the 
bill recognize the Heartland Expressway from Rapid City, South Dakota, 
to Scottsbluff, Nebraska, and Interstate 29 from Kansas City to the 
Canadian border, which would include the portion of the highway that 
runs through South Dakota, as High Priority Trade Corridors. Together 
these corridors provide important transportation links for the west and 
east ends of South Dakota. I am hopeful that each will be able to 
secure a portion of the funds to be made available for High Priority 
Trade Corridors under this bill.
  These projects, and the programs this bill funds, will help South 
Dakota and the Nation provide the transportation infrastructure 
necessary to remain competitive into the next century. Clearly, this 
bill is a slam dunk for the State of South Dakota. Through this act, we 
will provide for important infrastructure; restore integrity to an 
important part of the federal budget process; and ensure an equitable 
national transportation network.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I stand in reluctant opposition to the 
conference report on H.R. 2400, the ``Building Efficient Surface 
Transportation and Equity Act of 1998.''
  I am reluctant because the conference report preserves the goals of 
the House bill to strengthen and enhance our country's transportation 
needs into the next century. However, the conference report contains a 
fatal flaw in the revenue title. Its inclusion was preordained before 
the conference committee was convened. Regrettably, longstanding 
traditions of the House were ignored to secure an outcome which I 
adamantly oppose and which forced my decision not to serve on the 
conference committee.
  The objectionable provision relates to a 20-year-old subsidy for 
ethanol which the conference report extends through year 2007. The 
extension was included despite overwhelming opposition by the Ways and 
Means Committee and, I believe, by a majority of the House of 
Representatives. A study by the General Accounting Office concluded 
that ethanol has had no discernible effect on environmental quality and 
America's energy security. Furthermore, half of the benefits from this 
inappropriate subsidy flows to a single company. Editorials in papers 
from all parts of the country, including the corn-growing Mid-West, 
have registered opposition to the extension of this outdated and 
reckless subsidy. Copies of some of these editorials are included 
below.
  The bill as approved by the House would have allowed the ethanol 
credit to sunset in 2000 as provided under current law and instead 
provide meaningful tax relief and benefits to highway users, barges and 
railroads, as well as to millions of boaters and fishermen who enjoy 
our lakes, rivers and shores. Unfortunately, most of this House relief 
has now been siphoned off by the seven year extension of the subsidy 
contained in the conference report.
  We now have before us an agreement which turns a deaf ear to those 
who want to eliminate inappropriate subsidies and reduce the size of 
government. In conclusion, the process has been wronged. Worse, the 
taxpayer has been wronged. I have no choice but to oppose the 
conference report.

                          Wrong Way on Ethanol

       House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer has 
     declined to serve as a conferee on the highway bill and says 
     he'll vote against it, not for reasons having to do with 
     highways but because party leaders have stacked the 
     conference committee in favor of subsidizing ethanol. The 
     chairman opposes the 20-year-old ethanol subsidy as 
     ineffectual and a giveaway to the corn producers from whose 
     crop the gasoline extender is made, as well as to the Archer 
     Daniels Midland Corp., the principal manufacturer.
       He is right on the merits, but this is one where the merits 
     don't count. The Ways and Means Committee voted 22 to 11 to 
     let the subsidy lapse when it is supposed to expire in two 
     years. But the Senate voted to extend it. The Democrats, in 
     the form of the Clinton administration and House Minority 
     Leader Dick Gephardt, both support extension, and so, it 
     turns out, does House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The speaker said 
     he'd be pleased to name Mr. Archer a conferee, as custom 
     dictates, but only if he is flanked by two other Ways and 
     Means members prepared to out vote him on the issue. Rather 
     than serve as a cipher, Mr. Archer withdrew.
       The subsidy was enacted as part of the patchy national 
     response to the energy crisis in the 1970s. The manufacturers 
     receive income tax credits; the gasoline tax is also lower on 
     gasohol--gasoline mixed with ethanol--than on the 
     conventional product. The idea was to reduce both U.S. 
     dependence on foreign oil and air pollution from the burning 
     of fossil fuels. But the General Accounting Office concluded 
     last year that at best ethanol has made only a marginal 
     contribution to the achievement of either goal. Mostly, the 
     subsidy helps prop up corn prices by adding a little to 
     demand. The higher corn price may mean slightly higher beef 
     and chicken prices than otherwise, since the corn is used for 
     feed. ADM, which happens over the years to have been a major 
     source of campaign contributions to members of both parties, 
     likewise prospers.
       It's not clear that gasoline extended by ethanol could be 
     produced at a competitive price without the subsidy. Mr. 
     Archer is willing to face that, and ``at a time when we 
     should eliminate inappropriate subsidies,'' thinks his 
     colleagues should be, too.
                                  ____


                       [From Rapid City Journal]

                       Ethanol Tax Break Outdated

       The ethanol industry is mature enough to outlast its tax 
     subsidy.
       Since the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s and its resulting 
     energy crisis in the United States, the demand for self-
     sufficiency in energy production inspired several taxpayer-
     assisted ventures.
       The most well-known is the production of ethanol from 
     fermented corn, an alcohol that is blended with gasoline. 
     Since 1978, when ethanol production was less than 50 million 
     gallons, the industry has grown to produce about 1.5 billion 
     gallons in 1997. Along the way, a tax credit that costs 
     Americans a little more than $800 million a year has been the 
     principal assist for an industry that can't support itself 
     without the subsidy.
       Supporters of the subsidy say it's needed in order to 
     convince investors that major capital allocations to ethanol 
     producing plants are a reasonably safe bet, thereby employing 
     workers in corn belt regions and giving corn producers an 
     extra market for their product. The benefits to the rest of 
     the country, says the American Coalition for Ethanol, are 
     both strategic, in that foreign demand for oil is reduced, 
     and environmental, in that cleaner air is the result of 
     adding ethanol to gasoline.
       It sounds great, but we disagree. Subsidies to ethanol have 
     long since outlived their original intent, which was to help 
     a fledgling industry that held some promise for energy self-
     sufficiency get off the ground. Annual production of 1.5 
     billion gallons, which consumes between 5 percent to 10 
     percent of the country's corn crop, suggests the industry has 
     matured and should be able to make it on its own.
       Ethanol backers retort that the petroleum industry gets 
     subsidies, therefore so should they. On reviewing a list of 
     petroleum industry tax breaks provided to us by ethanol 
     spokesmen, tax experts we consulted tell us that the bulk of 
     the so-called petroleum subsidies--principally tax credits 
     for conducting business overseas and accelerated depreciation 
     allowances--are available to every multi-national business, 
     as well as every company that owns machinery and equipment. 
     If the ethanol industry went multi-national, it, too, would 
     get the same tax treatment.
       The ethanol industry also lumps in military costs in the 
     Persian Gulf as federal spending on oil, claiming the 
     military cost adds as much as 20 cents a gallon to the final 
     price of gasoline. We think the argument is specious. Even if 
     ethanol production in this country were to double, as its 
     backers hope, it would hardly make a dent in America's demand 
     for cheap foreign oil. Besides, maintaining order in the Gulf 
     is not tied exclusively to protecting the flow of oil.
       As to environmental claims, researchers in recent years 
     have been calling ethanol's benefits into question. A 1993 
     report by the University of Colorado in Chemical and 
     Engineering News reported that EPA-mandated use of ethanol 
     along Colorado's Front Range had a statistically 
     insignificant impact on air quality. And the National Academy 
     of Science's Douglas Lawson, lead author of a comprehensive 
     study on oxygenated fuels, told Forbes Magazine a year ago 
     that EPA policies mandating ethanol ``may not be cost-
     effective or may be ineffective.'' Other studies are equally 
     dubious about ethanol's purported environmental benefits.
       We're also leery of the additional costs that will be borne 
     by livestock producers, who could pay more for corn if 
     ethanol production reached hope-for levels.
       In a free-market world, we have no argument with ethanol, 
     per se, but we believe that if it is indeed a product of such 
     many-sided benefits, private sector resources will eagerly 
     pursue a chance to get in on it.
       American taxpayers have already given it as much of a boost 
     as they should.

  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report on reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act (ISTEA). When I voted for passage of H.R. 2400, the 
Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act (BESTEA) on 
April 1 of this year, I did so because it was a good bill for Illinois. 
Although that is not entirely true of the conference report, I will 
vote in favor of it because it contains some important provisions and 
will allow us to complete many desperately-needed projects.
  Prior to passage of the original ISTEA bill, Illinois received only 
93 cents for every gas tax dollar it sent to the federal treasury. As a

[[Page H3963]]

member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee then and now, 
I worked hard to bring equity to this relationship, and this effort was 
successful. ISTEA returned $1.03 to Illinois for each tax dollar. H.R. 
2400, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act 
(BESTEA), of which I am a cosponsor, pledged to provide the Land of 
Lincoln over a billion dollars annually over the next six years and 
maintain this return. However, the conference report is a significant 
setback from this progress. It returns my state to donor status, at 92 
cents for every dollar in gas taxes, and reduces Illinois' annual 
return significantly.
  Nonetheless, the conference report earmarks funding for several 
transportation projects in the 19th Congressional District which will 
greatly benefit my constituents. We must have the funds to follow 
through with these contracts or risk losing an entire construction 
season. In addition, I am pleased that the state of Illinois has been 
guaranteed hundreds of millions of dollars in discretionary funding for 
critical projects, including construction on the Stevenson Expressway 
and Wacker Drive in Chicago. These funds will be crucial in improving 
conditions in the Chicago area. The bill also provides for increased 
transit funding, establishes an access-to-jobs initiative which will 
assist those making the transition from welfare to work, and gives 
Illinois 29% more funding that under the original 1991 ISTEA 
legislation.
  The conference report extends the federal tax credit for ethanol 
until the year 2007, which I have fiercely advocated for over the 
years. This is sound policy that will help American agriculture and the 
environment, benefit consumers, and reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil. Unfortunately, the final version of this legislation does not 
contain House-passed provisions relating to the intrastate 
transportation of agricultural products, such as fertilizers, 
pesticides, and fuels. For two years, I have fought with 
Representatives Ewing, Barcia, and Buyer, and other supporters to allow 
states to maintain their current exceptions to federal regulations that 
would overburden our family farmers with costly compliance fees. 
Another opportunity to address this reality is not likely before the 
end of this Congress, and I wish the outcome had been different. I am 
pleased that a portion of the offset moneys will be used for veterans' 
education and disability programs, and I will continue to work on 
behalf of America's veterans in every way I can.
  No, this conference report is not perfect, but I nonetheless urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of it. I have strongly supported this 
process since its inception, and truly believe the ISTEA framework has 
been successful. There are far too many critical projects and programs 
that must be funded immediately, and we can ill afford to allow this 
reauthorization process to continue any longer. I am proud of my work 
as a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in 
helping to craft this next incarnation of ISTEA, and I look forward to 
its passage.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, Title III of the Conference Report to 
accompany H.R. 2400 contains project authorizations in section (c)(1) 
making $3,000,000,000 available for fiscal years 1998 through 2003 for 
a variety of projects. Included in this section is authorization for 
the Dallas North Central Light Rail Transit Extension in the amount of 
$188 million. I am taking this opportunity to thank the conferees for 
making these funds available, but I would also like to take this 
opportunity to reiterate the position of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit 
regarding the full federal share of this project.
  DART originally requested $333 million as the federal share for 
fulfillment of the Full Funding Grant Agreement that has been under 
negotiation between DART and the Federal Transit Administration. During 
these negotiations, FTA indicated its commitment to proceed with the 
implementation of the project by the issuance of a Letter Of No 
Prejudice. It is important to note that it is DART's understanding that 
the $188 million authorized in the conference report to accompany H.R. 
2400 is a floor and not a ceiling and that the full $333 million will 
be made available for the federal share to ensure the completion of 
this project which has been the subject of the negotiations between 
DART and FTA.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Tea-21--
a legislative package I refer to as ``Green Tea.'' This is the most 
significant piece of environmental legislation passed in the 105th 
Congress. ``Green Tea'' provides billions of dollars to improve the 
quality of our nation's air through the Congestion Mitigation Air 
Quality (CMAQ) program. As we work to improve air quality CMAQ will 
prove to be one of our most valuable tools.
  ``Green Tea'' dramatically increases our commitment to transit 
programs which are critical to improving our environment and relieving 
the commuter congestion that chokes our urban centers. This legislation 
secures $41 billion for transit over the next six years.
  ``Green Tea'' continues the enormously successful Transportation 
Enhancement program. This program has built bike paths and preserved 
historic transportation structures across the country.
  ``Green Tea'' promotes the use of electric and natural gas vehicles--
an important step toward reducing green house gases.
  In crafting ``Green Tea'' Chairman Shuster worked closely with the 
environmental community to produce a bill that will improve America's 
infrastructure and our environment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, due to circumstances beyond my 
control, I am unable to cast my vote for the Building Efficient Surface 
Transportation and Equity Act (H.R. 2400) Conference Report. If I were 
able to vote on the conference report, I would vote in the affirmative. 
This legislation is vital to restoring integrity to the Highway Trust 
Fund, and funding equity to the several States.
  While the issue of transportation infrastructure may not seem 
glamorous, it takes on a compelling National interest when economic 
growth is restricted, and our valuable time is wasted by crushing 
traffic jams, potholed and dangerous roads, and a crumbling National 
transportation infrastructure. The Conference Report on H.R. 2400 is 
landmark legislation that affirms the Federal government's commitment 
to a strong, modern, and safe transportation infrastructure.
  This legislation restores the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund; it 
has the support of business and labor, contractors and 
environmentalists, safety groups, and State and local governments 
alike; it addresses many of the concerns of Hoosiers by returning a 
greater portion of the money collected by motor vehicle excise taxes to 
Indiana for much-needed infrastructure investment. Equally as 
important, BESTEA gives States and localities the ability to decide how 
and where transportation dollars should be spent.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, if I were able to vote on the conference report, 
I would vote in the affirmative. It is crucial that the Congress 
restore integrity to the Highway Trust Fund and ensure funding equity 
to the several States.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without 
objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. OBEY. I most certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the Conference Report on the 
     bill, H.R. 2400, to the Committee of Conference with 
     instructions to the managers on the part of the House to 
     strike those provisions of the Conference Report that 
     prohibit or reduce service-connected disability compensation 
     to veterans relating to use of tobacco products.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not debatable.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of agreeing to the conference report.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 190, 
nays 195, not voting 49, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 191]

                               YEAS--190

     Aderholt
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Coburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Emerson

[[Page H3964]]


     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fox
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Obey
     Olver
     Pappas
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Regula
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Turner
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gingrich
     Goodling
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Rush
     Ryun
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stokes
     Sununu
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thune
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Wise

                             NOT VOTING--49

     Archer
     Bateman
     Blunt
     Boucher
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Conyers
     DeFazio
     Deutsch
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Graham
     Green
     Harman
     Hefley
     Hoekstra
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Lofgren
     McCrery
     McDade
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (CA)
     Mollohan
     Neal
     Parker
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Royce
     Sanford
     Skaggs
     Smith (OR)
     Stenholm
     Taylor (NC)
     Torres
     Towns
     Wamp
     Wexler
     Wicker

                              {time}  1757

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. ADAM SMITH of Washington, STRICKLAND, BRADY of Texas, 
JEFFERSON, WEYGAND, YOUNG of Alaska, Mrs. KELLY, and Messrs. ENGEL, 
SMITH of Michigan, McGOVERN, MANTON, MARTINEZ, WYNN, INGLIS of South 
Carolina and Mrs. CLAYTON changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, due to family obligations I was unavoidably 
detained from several roll call votes today. Had I been present, I 
would have voted no on roll call votes 187, and 188. I would have voted 
yes on roll call vote 189, 190 and 191.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker 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 SPEAKER. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 297, 
noes 86, not voting 50, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 192]

                               AYES--297

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capps
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                                NOES--86

     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coburn
     Cox
     Crane

[[Page H3965]]


     Deal
     Dicks
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Frelinghuysen
     Gilman
     Goss
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Lewis (GA)
     Maloney (NY)
     McCollum
     McNulty
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Obey
     Paul
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stump
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Waxman
     White
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--50

     Archer
     Bateman
     Blunt
     Boucher
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Conyers
     DeFazio
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Furse
     Gonzalez
     Graham
     Green
     Harman
     Hefley
     Hoekstra
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Lofgren
     McCrery
     McDade
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (CA)
     Mollohan
     Neal
     Parker
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rogers
     Royce
     Sanford
     Skaggs
     Smith (OR)
     Stenholm
     Taylor (NC)
     Torres
     Towns
     Wamp
     Wexler
     Wicker

                              {time}  1807

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Green for, with Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas against.
       Mr. Wicker for, with Mr. Parker against.
       Mr. Wamp for, with Mr. Sanford against.
       Mr. McDade for, with Mr. Kingston against.
       Mr. Burton for, with Mr. Archer against.
       Mr. Quinn for, with Mr. Burr of North Carolina against.
  Mr. TIERNEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that had I been 
present during the vote on the conference report for H.R. 2400, 
Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act, I would have 
voted ``no'' on the conference report.

                          ____________________