[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.
____________________