[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 124 (Friday, October 6, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H9018-H9028]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4475, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 612, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4475) making appropriations for
the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 612, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
October 5, 2000, at page H8922.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present today the conference
report on the Department of Transportation and related agencies. In
total, the bill provides $17.8 billion in discretionary budget
authority for critical operations of the Department of Transportation,
an increase of $3.5 billion over fiscal year 2000. Much of the increase
over last year's level is attributed to mandated increases in the
Federal Aviation Administration as a result of the enactment of AIR21.
In addition, the increase over last year is a result of additional
operational requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard.
Allow me to mention a couple of highlights:
$4.5 billion for the Coast Guard, of which $565 million is for drug
interdiction;
$12 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration, a 25 percent
increase over last year, consistent with the requirements of AIR21, of
which $3.2 billion is for airport improvement programs;
$30 billion for the federal-aid highways program, an increase of
almost $2 billion over last year and consistent with TEA21;
$720 million for the emergency relief highway program to fund the
backlog of overdue bills to restore highways damaged in previous
natural disasters;
$6.3 billion for transit program spending, an increase of $486
million;
$279 million for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
more than double last year, to improve truck safety on our Nation's
roads;
$404 million for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
an increase of nearly 10 percent, again safety;
$725 million for the Federal Railroad Administration, of which $521
million is for Amtrak;
$47 million for pipeline safety, which is an increase of over 25
percent.
In addition, the conference agreement contains several items that
have been of deep interest to a lot of Members. The agreement before
the body contains the following resolutions on rollover, hours-of-
service, and .08.
First, on rollover, the agreement permits the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration to move forward with its rollover testing
proposal while the National Academy of Sciences studies static versus
dynamic testing. Once the study is completed, the administration must
propose any appropriate revisions to their testing procedures.
Second, the agreement permits the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration to collect and analyze public comments and data on its
proposed hours-of-service rule-making during fiscal year 2001. The
administration may also issue a supplemental notice of proposed rule-
making once this analysis is complete. However, the agreement prohibits
the Federal Motor Carrier Administration from taking any final action
on the proposed rule during the year 2001. However, a lot of Members in
this body and on the committee will be watching to see the Motor
Carrier move ahead, because over 5,000 people a year are killed with
regard to trucks every year and a number because of tired truck
drivers.
Third, the agreement modifies the Senate provision on .08 but still
adopts a national standard for drunk driving. This new provision
requires all States to adopt a blood alcohol level of .08 by fiscal
year 2004. If States do not adopt this standard, they will lose a
portion of their highway funds each year, 2 percent in the year 2004, 4
percent in 2005, 6 percent in 2006, and 8 percent in 2007. However, the
highway funding would be restored if a State moves to the lower
standard by the end of the year 2007. This is basically in honor and in
memory of the moms and dads who have lost loved ones on the road
because by doing this, we will save four to 500 lives every year. It is
my understanding that the Department of Transportation and the White
House supports all three of these compromises.
Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement also includes a provision
relating to the Central Artery project. This provision is the
culmination of 6 years of review and scrutiny by this committee and the
Department of Transportation's Inspector General on the project. The
Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston, first estimated to cost $2.5
billion in fiscal year 1985, is now estimated to top $13.1 billion.
This provision contained in the conference agreement codifies a recent
agreement with Massachusetts officials and the Federal Highway
Administration which limits Federal financial participation in the
project to $8.5 billion, and sets forward other terms and conditions,
including the requirement that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
undertake a balanced statewide construction program of $400 million a
year.
Mr. Speaker, this provision is not meant to impugn the administration
of, or the recent actions by, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. In
fact, over the last recent months, the new administration has been
forthcoming with details of the cost overruns and the cost to complete
the project, something that previous MTA officials withheld from
Federal officials. This provision is not to prejudice the current
administration of the MTA but rather to ensure that the Federal Highway
Administration and the Secretary of Transportation fulfill their
fiduciary responsibilities to the American taxpayer.
This conference agreement is a good bill, it is balanced, and it is a
bill which will clearly, whether it be on the rollover, whether it be
on the .08, whether it be on the trucks and the others and the Coast
Guard will save lives. Seldom do we get an opportunity to vote for
something that we clearly know will save so many lives. It deserves,
hopefully, the body's support. It is my understanding the
administration has no serious objections to the bill and will sign it.
Before I close, I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Sabo), the ranking member, and the other members of the
subcommittee for the bipartisan spirit which they have shown in helping
us to reach an agreement on these issues. This has never been a
partisan bill, and I am pleased that this tradition continues. The
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) have been most gracious and willing to reach compromises
needed to move this bill forward to the President.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our full committee chairman
who has done such an outstanding job, has always ensured that this
subcommittee's allocation is ample to accommodate the needs of this
subcommittee. With that spirit, I think we have a good bill.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to also take a moment to express my deepest
[[Page H9019]]
appreciation for the fine work done by the professional staff on the
transportation appropriations subcommittee, including John Blazey,
Stephanie Gupta, Rich Efford, Linda Muir, Cheryl Smith and the detailee
from the Department of Transportation, Chris Porter.
These professionals have been instrumental in bringing together this
important bill. They epitomize, and I speak really for staff people on
all the committees, the countless committee staffers who work long
hours on Capitol Hill with little or many times no recognition. Now,
thanks to their efforts, we are sending a bill to the President that
will improve the lives of all Americans by helping to ensure that they
not only can go where they want to go but can get there safely.
Stephanie Gupta worked tirelessly to include the .08 standard which
will make certain that our sons and daughters and moms and dads can
return home safely at night. Her perseverance on this issue, in the
face of incredible odds, was crucial in the inclusion of .08. Again,
500 lives.
Additionally, Rich Efford diligently worked to guarantee that the FAA
was giving adequate attention to the problem of runway incursions and
other safety issues that are so important to Members on both sides of
this issue. Rich sacrificed time with his own family for the purpose of
making sure that air travel is safer for all of our families.
And Linda Muir is the glue that holds it all together in the
subcommittee office. Her organizational skills and good humor have made
all of our jobs a lot easier.
Cheryl Smith, from the minority side, is a true professional whose
knowledge and experience were valuable assets to the committee's work.
I also want to thank Geoff Gleason from my staff for the committee
who for 2 decades, first working with Mr. Solomon and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and now in my office has been invaluable in
our work with our colleagues in bringing this legislation up.
Finally, I would like to thank the staff director, John Blazey, who
oversaw the hundreds, and I would say thousands of projects in this
bill and is one of the finest professionals on Capitol Hill. I was a
staffer on Capitol Hill for a number of years before I had the
opportunity to serve and watching John, I can tell you, he is a tribute
to the staff that does such a good job on both sides of the aisle.
Through his guidance and leadership, we have brought forth an excellent
bill which tackles many of the concerns at the heart of transportation
in America.
{time} 1030
John Blazey knows more about these issues perhaps than anyone else
certainly in the Congress, and maybe in the country. I know he will be
an asset to the new Bush Administration when they take over in January
of next year.
As this will be my last year as chairman of this transportation
appropriations bill, I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to the staff,
to the Members on both sides, to the leadership and to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young) for helping.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, let me first share the kind words of the
gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf for our staff, all the staff he
mentioned, along with Marjorie Duske of my staff. They do outstanding
work. This is a big and complicated bill to put together, and they do
an outstanding job. We owe them our heartfelt thanks for the hours and
hours of work they put in producing this bill. They are competent, they
are professional, they are fair, and my thanks go to all the staff that
works on this bill.
As the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) indicated, this is his
last year chairing the Subcommittee on Transportation. I have had the
opportunity over the last 4 years to serve as the ranking member on
this subcommittee and as a member for the entire 6 years that the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has chaired the subcommittee. The
gentleman has done an outstanding job. He is professional, he is tough,
he is fair, and he knows what he is doing, and he works hard. I expect
on many issues we come from differing points on view, on many issues
that come before this Congress, but in terms of working on this
subcommittee, I have always found the gentleman to be totally open, to
be fair in dealing with the members of the minority. His commitment to
the transportation system in this country, in particular to safety
issues, the transportation system is better because of his efforts; but
in particular I have to say that his constant attention to safety
issues has been simply outstanding.
I would say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), this House and
the whole country owes the gentleman a big thank you for 6 years of an
outstanding job.
On the bill itself, it is a good bill. I intend to vote for it. I am
not going to go through the same detail the Chairman did. Everything
the gentleman said is accurate. It is a bill that will make substantial
improvement to the transportation systems of this country.
I agree with most everything in the bill, but let me just briefly
mention one issue where the Chair and I disagree. He is on the winning
side; I am on the losing side. But in the context of our Federal system
in this country, there are certain things that the Federal Government
has responsibilities for; there are other things that State government
has responsibility. Clearly one area where the States have preeminence
is creating and enforcing the traffic laws of our country.
One of the most difficult issues for States to deal with is to
establish the framework for dealing with drunk drivers. That involves
their responsibility not only for creating law, but creating a court
system to deal with it, creating the enforcement mechanisms, creating
and spending the money for penalties and creating and spending the
money for treatment.
There are many components that go into a State having a rational and
strong drunk driving law. In my judgment, it is a serious mistake for
the Federal Government to move in on one component of a complex and
difficult problem and say to the States, you do what we think is right,
or we will take your highway money away, or a portion of your highway
money away.
It is the type of thing we do too frequently in this institution, not
with careful thought, but simply because somebody at some point thinks
it is a good idea. We add it as a rider to a bill, and the States have
to comply.
It may or may not be the right thing to do. It may vary from State to
State. What I am certain of, however, is that setting the blood alcohol
content level is only one small part of establishing a comprehensive
drunk driving policy for a State; and for us to insert our judgment on
simply this one issue, and leaving the States with all the complexity
of other things to deal with, to me represents the arrogance at times
that we carry in the Federal Government as it relates to State and
local government in this country. So I strongly oppose what we are
doing on this particular provision.
Nonetheless, I intend to vote for the total bill, because, overall,
it is a very good bill for transportation and safety in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss those provisions of this conference
agreement which come under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government. These provisions are
ones that we hope will allow the conference report, which has been over
in the Senate and, unfortunately, has not been successful in passage,
to allow that to be brought up again and finally passed. We believe
that these represent the final compromises and agreements on the
Treasury-Postal legislation, and those changes are incorporated into
this bill.
The provisions include more funding for the IRS, and they are items
that the administration has indicated that
[[Page H9020]]
they need to have in order to fully support the fiscal year 2001
conference report that we passed on September 14.
The conference report includes an additional $348 million for the
programs of the Department of Treasury, the Executive Office of the
President, the National Archives, and the General Services
Administration. When combined with the amounts that are in H.R. 4985,
the fiscal year 2001 conference agreement, it provides $15.9 billion
for agencies under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Treasury,
Postal Service and General Government. That is an increase of $2.3
billion from fiscal year 2000, or 16.4 percent.
Included in the amount under consideration in the conference report
pending before us now are these, among others: $37.2 million for
Treasury-wide efforts to combat terrorism, that is an increase; an
increase of $215 million for the IRS, including $71.8 million for
ongoing efforts related to information systems modernization, $141
million to support ongoing reform efforts, including staff for customer
service and audits, and $3.1 million for money laundering; an
additional $16.6 million for the Customs Service, to enhance both
infrastructure and staffing along the northern border, specifically to
counter terrorist threats in that area; an additional $30 million to
establish and operate a metropolitan area law enforcement training
center for the Department of Treasury, the U.S. Capitol Police, the
Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and other Federal
agencies; $5 million for the enhanced operation of the Office of
National Drug Control's Technology Transfer Program; and $2.5 million
as a transfer to the Elections Commission of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico for objective nonpartisan citizens education for choice by voters
on the island's future status.
Let me just say a few words about this latter item, because it proved
to be one of the more contentious ones. It is money that is provided
for the Puerto Rico referendum on statehood or independence. After many
long hours of numerous variations on a theme, we were able to secure a
compromise with the administration on the use of these funds.
The funds are provided with the following conditions: they are not
available until March 31, 2001; the funds may not be used by the
Elections Commission until 45 days after the commission submits to the
Committees on Appropriations an expenditure plan developed jointly by
the Popular Democratic Party, the New Progressive Party, and the Puerto
Rico Independence Party; and the expenditure plan must be approved by
the Committees on Appropriations prior to any funds being spent.
I want to pay special tribute to my colleague, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). This has been a difficult bill, to negotiate the
final agreements. He and his staff have worked extremely hard with us,
and I believe what we have achieved is good legislation.
I want to thank the staff of my subcommittee, led by the clerk,
Michelle Mrdeza, Jeff Ashford, Kurt Dodd, Tammy Hughes, our detailee,
Doug Burke, Kevin Messner from any own staff, and, of course, on the
other side, Pat Schlueter and Scott Nance, who have played key roles in
getting this legislation to where we are today.
I believe we have legislation that can be supported, and I hope that
Members will support it.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of the full Committee on
Appropriations and a member of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal
Service and General Government.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote for this bill. I think in many ways
it is a good bill. This subcommittee is run by a very classy guy. The
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has been a very good chairman for
this subcommittee, and I think everybody in this institution knows it.
And the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) is one of the classiest
people who has ever been in this institution, and he has done a fine
job as well. But I am going to vote against it, and I want to explain
why.
I do not need any lectures from anybody about the dangers of drunk
driving. When I was in junior high school, I was knocked off my bicycle
by a truck driver who had spent 4 hours in a tavern rather than doing
what he was supposed to be doing that day. My grandfather was killed in
an accident involving drunk driving. So I have had experience with
drunk drivers.
But I have also had experience with seeing people killed or maimed
because of bad highways. I used to live on a two-lane highway, Highway
29, in Marathon County, Wisconsin. A car was demolished simply pulling
into our driveway because it was a badly engineered road. If that
highway had been modernized, those people would not have been mangled.
The problem with this bill is that it sacrifices highway safety in one
area because of concern in another area, and I think that is wrong.
Now, I do not know what the proper blood alcohol level ought to be,
but I do know that if the Federal Government is going to penalize
States by taking away highway money that they need to modernize
dangerous roads, that then States ought to be judged on the whole array
of their laws involving drunk driving, and not just one piece.
I want to give some examples. This proposal originated with a Senator
from New Jersey. I want to compare my State's record to New Jersey's.
Virginia has often been cited as a reason why we should lower the
blood alcohol level. But I want to point out, Wisconsin, my State, has
a prohibition on open containers containing alcohol in motor vehicles;
Virginia does not.
On blood alcohol testing, Wisconsin has mandatory testing of all
drivers after an accident; New Jersey and Virginia do not.
Wisconsin requires mandatory early assessment of drunk drivers to
determine alcohol dependency; and it requires treatment, if needed.
Virginia and New Jersey do not have those requirements.
In Wisconsin, the Department of Motor Vehicles can revoke a license
for drunk driving; in New Jersey, only a court can revoke a license for
drunk driving, and that takes much longer.
In Wisconsin, if you compare the traffic fatality rate between 1975
and 1997, Wisconsin's has improved by 61 percent; New Jersey's has
improved by only 45 percent.
Yet Wisconsin is being penalized. It is going to lose money because
it does not have a .08 alcohol level, and New Jersey happens to have
it.
The most significant reason that Wisconsin has been able to attack
successfully drunk driving is because we have an initiative under which
we have a broad-based county-by-county supervision program that
oversees drunk drivers in all aspects of their lives.
{time} 1045
And that has dramatically reduced recidivism. And according to the
National Highway Safety Administration, which authorized a study of
this, if you have a program like we have, you are 12 times less likely
to engage in drunk driving than you are if you do not have that kind of
a program.
Mr. Speaker, my objection is very simply this: All of us as human
beings want to be judged on the basis of our entire conduct, not on the
basis of any one little imperfection that someone happens to see. The
same should be true of States. We should not take away precious highway
aids from States who have done a far better job overall in dealing with
the drunk driving issue, just because they happen to not meet
somebody's standard of perfection on one narrow item, and that is why
the National Governor's Association, The League of Cities, AAA, the
Conference of State Legislatures and the International Association of
Chiefs of Police all oppose this narrow approach to this problem.
I am going to vote against this in protest to the way Congress has
looked only at one narrow issue, rather than the whole range of issues
in determining what a State's level of highway aid ought to be. I thank
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for yielding me the time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the full committee.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation for
yielding the time to me, and I want to compliment him for working
through a difficult conference and producing what I think is a really
fine bill.
[[Page H9021]]
It meets the needs of America. There are more needs that need to be
met, but this bill goes right directly to the heart of some of the hot
transportation problems, whether it is surface transportation or
whether it is air transportation.
Are there negatives? Are there things you could look for to be
against? Of course. In any bill that comes before this House, if my
colleagues want to find something to be against, they can find
something to be against. There are 435 of us here. I would suspect that
there are a lot more than 3 or 4 ideas or positions on any issue.
But I want to specifically compliment the gentleman from Virginia
(Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the
ranking member of the subcommittee.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) mentioned our staff, John
Blazey, Rich Efford, Stephie Gupta and the other members of the staff.
These people are professionals. They know what the needs are, and they
do the best they can to give us advice so that we can utilize the money
available to meet those needs.
I wanted to talk specifically for just a few minutes today about the
United States Coast Guard. There are many who believe that the United
States Coast Guard, because they are a uniform service, because they
carry guns, because they enforce laws, because they go to war when
America go goes to war or to deployment, as they did in Kosovo or as
they did in Bosnia, they are part of the national defense system and
get funded through the Defense appropriations bill. That is not the
case.
The United States Coast Guard is funded in this bill on
transportation. I represent a county in Florida where we are very
fortunate to have three Coast Guard stations in that county, Pinellas
County, Florida. We have the major Coast Guard air station for the
entire system.
We also have a major sea station, and we have a fast boat station for
quick access to the Gulf of Mexico to take care of close in problems
with people that are boating or fishing or whatever and need the
service of the Coast Guard. But the Coast Guard is called upon to be
deployed 365 days a year; and for years, the Coast Guard had to squeeze
their budget, really squeeze to get by, to keep their operational
activities going.
I would like to say to the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf), I
thank him so much. In this bill, the gentleman has really met the needs
of the United States Coast Guard. I believe that Commandant Loy, who is
an outstanding leader, would say to the gentleman, as he has to me, and
he probably has to the gentleman, that this bill really makes them feel
comfortable.
If my colleagues want to not vote for this bill for any reason like
they did not get a new bridge in their districts, or did not get some
new highway money, or did not get some aviation assets in this bill,
think of the United States Coast Guard. They not only protect our coast
and our harbors, but they risk their own lives in search and rescue
missions, where they go into weather situations that other people are
running from to save lives and to save property.
In the interdiction of drugs, the United States Coast Guard has an
outstanding record. These are the drugs that are trying to be brought
into the United States to seriously affect people of this great
country, and the Coast Guard just does a great job of preventing this.
As I said, they are deployed every day. They risk their lives every
day.
And I say to the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member and to the
staff of this subcommittee, I just want to say as one Member who has a
personal experience with the Coast Guard, my colleagues have done a
good job for the United States Coast Guard.
I thank my colleagues for that. I appreciate that, and I will
enthusiastically support this bill.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Olver) for yielding me the time, and I rise in support of this
conference report and particularly to discuss the component of this
conference report which deals with the Treasury Postal bill, of which I
have the honor of being the ranking member and working with the
gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe).
As the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) indicated in his
opening remarks, this has been a difficult bill and difficult for us to
come to agreement between ourselves and with the administration, but I
believe we have done so.
I believe we have done so in a very responsible fashion, which
provides for an additional sum for the IRS, which is critical for the
agency to meet the mandates of the Restructuring and Reform Act of
1998. I think there is agreement on that between the gentleman from
Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and myself in our subcommittee.
Without this funding, a successful completion of the 2001 filing
season would quite possibly have been at risk. Customer service would
have been reduced and audit coverage could have continued to decline.
In addition, this legislation continues the modernization of the IRS by
upgrading its computer systems and business practices.
All of that was critically important to do, and I am pleased that we
are adding a sum sufficient to accomplish those objectives in this
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, it also includes more than $37 million in funding to
counter terrorist threats along our northern border, enhances the
Federal Government's joint terrorism task force, and to establish a new
national terrorist asset tracking center, which was very important to
the administration. They had asked for $50 million. They did not get
all $50 million but they got about $38 million, and that was a
significant step forward in countering terrorism.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the conference for including
sums, and this is the transportation conference, so that we might
complete the reconstruction of the Wilson Bridge.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this conference report, both because the
transportation side of it is good, and I think the Treasury Postal side
is a very good step forward.
I want to join in the remarks of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Sabo), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation, with
reference to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). Frank Wolf is a
good friend of mine. He is a man of great character, intellect and deep
integrity.
He is a fine Member of this body, and he has, as the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) indicated, led this committee for 6 years, in a
very, very bipartisan and substantive way. And I join the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) in his complimentary remarks about the
leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who is such an
important Member of the Washington metropolitan delegation.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service
and General Government, and thank, as he did, the staff: my own staff,
Pat Schlueter and Scott Nance who worked very hard on this bill. I
thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) for his words about
them, and then Michelle Mrdeza who is our staff director. She does an
extraordinary job trying to keep all the component parts of our bill
together.
It has been a very difficult year for her, because, as all of my
colleagues know, we have had some problems on the Senate side passing
the bill. I also want to thank Jeff Ashford, Kurt Dodd, Doug Burke, and
Tammy Hughes for their work on this bill.
As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) said and as the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) said and as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Sabo) said, we cannot do this work without very conscientiousness, very
able, very hard-working staff; and although this has been a difficult
process, they have stayed with it, and their effort was a critical
component of our success.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, I will support the conference report, which
includes the additions which I think will make the Treasury Postal bill
a signable bill by the President.
[[Page H9022]]
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for shepherding a very, very complex bill
through a very complicated legislative process.
Most of all, I also want to thank the regional delegation for working
together in a bipartisan manner, and the administration and my House
leadership for the inclusion of the $600 million for the Woodrow Wilson
bridge. This is a major artery along the North-South expressway. It is
in danger of falling into the Potomac River if a new bridge is not
completed. This will complete the $1.5 billion Federal obligation and
just my thanks to all concerned.
Finally, to my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), I
thank him for his leadership in the last 6 years of this subcommittee.
It has meant a lot to this region. It has meant a lot to this country,
and it has been just a pleasure to serve with the gentleman in this
capacity and the value the gentleman has added to our region, I think
is second to anything anybody has ever done. The gentleman has made a
huge difference.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my friend from Virginia (Mr.
Davis) and say we see a lot of partisanship, but one of the positive
things for me in this Congress is working with the Washington
metropolitan delegation which is very bipartisan. It is almost half and
half in terms of its makeup, and we work very well together. This was a
great success for our region and for our country. I thank the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis)
and certainly the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and our four
Senators who worked so hard on reaching this objective. I thank the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for yielding to me.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). It has been a pleasure working with the
gentleman, and I also thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) as
well.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to vote for this legislation. I want,
first, to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), our ranking member, and the
majority and minority staff, John Blazey for the majority and Cheryl
Smith for the minority staff, for the work that they have done; and it
is a very fine piece of work on what is a bipartisan bill.
Mr. Speaker, I want particularly to thank the chair and the ranking
member and the majority and minority staff for working with me and the
other Members of the Massachusetts delegation to repair the necessary
working relationship between the Federal Highway Administration and the
Massachusetts Highway Administration, making certain that my State
would continue to have or could depend upon a balanced construction
program during the final years of the construction of what is the
largest and most complex construction project in the history of this
country.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to pay tribute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman, who will move on to some other
subcommittee or some other ranking chairmanship position in the next
Congress. I want to commend him for what has been the hallmarks of his
tenure as chairman which, in my mind, clearly has been both fairness
and safety.
{time} 1100
Throughout his years he has focused on the safety of the traveling
public, whether it was rail, whether it was air travel, whether it was
highway travel. In that, I want to commend him for his persistence in
his advocacy of what I believe is a carefully and judiciously crafted
phase-in of the .08 blood alcohol content requirement.
Remember, here, no one loses any dollars for at least 6 years. I do
not in any way doubt that the blood alcohol content provision can be
viewed as only one part of a comprehensive program in dealing with
driving under the influence. But if adopted, if adhered to, if
enforced, this provision can save 500 lives every year, and in so
doing, save hundreds and probably thousands of families from the grief
of loss that occurs when there is a senseless DUI accident. I commend
the chairman for his persistence in his work on that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, 2 decades ago I had the privilege of being
first elected to serve here in the Congress, and one of the greatest
members of that class in 1980 was the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf), who, as has been pointed out by virtually everyone here, has
served extraordinarily well as chairman over the past 6 years of this
very important subcommittee.
I listen to my colleagues who are proud to represent this Washington,
D.C. metropolitan area, and yet I have to say that the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has also done an awful lot to help us deal with one
of the most pressing problems that we have in my State, especially in
the southern part of the State which I am privileged to represent, and
that is transportation.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) just mentioned the focus
on safety, and that, obviously, is a high priority. I want to praise
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for focusing on air traffic
safety, which is obviously a very important issue, near and dear to
virtually all of us who live outside of the Washington, D.C.
metropolitan area who travel by air regularly.
Of course, for those of us who suffered through the horrible delays
this past summer, we want to bring about some kind of resolution to
ensure that that kind of thing does not, as many have predicted, get
worse.
Let me talk briefly about just four specific Southern California
priorities that we have.
First and foremost, for years we have worked together to deal with
the challenges that have confronted the Metropolitan Transit Authority
in Los Angeles. Dealing with the construction there has been difficult,
but the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has regularly been
understanding of the very important needs that we have faced there, and
the fact that in Southern California, Los Angeles was the largest city
on the face of the Earth without a mass transit system. The gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has helped us as we have moved ahead to try
and address that need.
Specifically, in the area that I represent, there are three
particular priorities that we have. That is, number one, when we look
at the fact that we live in a global economy, international trade is
very, very important for our survival. The ports of Long Beach and Los
Angeles are going to be providing an opportunity to expand trade in
both directions, to the Pacific Rim and other parts of the world.
A project known as the Alameda Corridor was established to make sure
that goods could get to and from the ports of Long Beach and Los
Angeles in the Los Angeles area to downtown.
One of the things that we had to realize, though, and it did not come
to our attention until a few years ago, is that once things got to
downtown Los Angeles, they had to get to the rest of the Nation. So we
established a priority known as the Alameda Corridor East so on the
east side of Los Angeles, going to the rest of the country, we could
deal with grade separations and other problems that existed there that
would jeopardize the ability of goods to move in both directions. So
there is very important funding here for the Alameda Corridor East,
which is important.
The other priority we have in our area, which is a very, very
important one and with a great partnership, as the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) knows between the local communities, the private
sector, and the Federal Government, has been something known as
Foothill Transit. It has had wonderful success.
Again, I believe, as I have testified before, the subcommittee of the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) should be a model for the rest of
the
[[Page H9023]]
country of how we can see disparate levels of government come together,
along with the private sector, to proceed with meeting this very, very
important need.
Then there is one little item, we in Southern California you may
recall suffered fires and ensuing rains which caused mudslides. We have
a very important road known as Chantry Flats, which has been wiped out
because of those storms. I am very appreciative of the fact that we are
going to be able to have the resources in to make sure that we
construct that and get it back on track.
So let me just say that along with the priorities that have been
outlined by so many, the Coast Guard, which the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) talked about, very important to California, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is part of that important Maryland, Virginia,
and metropolitan Washington D.C. area.
His interest in dealing with national concerns, even those 3,000
miles away, has not gone unnoticed; and I greatly appreciate the time
and effort he has put in to addressing our needs.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the authorizing
committee.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I join gladly in the praise of the retiring chairman,
retiring from the chairmanship, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf),
for his steadfast advocacy for safety in transportation, which has been
very effective and has indeed made our Nation's transportation systems
safer.
This may indeed be a good bill, but the manager's report does not
measure up to that standard. It includes a listing of 162 airport
projects which the managers would like to see funded out of FAA
discretionary funds.
In the past, to be sure, there have been listings of projects for
specific airports, but without specific dollar amounts and with less
prescriptive language, and far fewer projects, only a handful compared
to the 162 listed in this manager's report, or in excess of $300
million.
I know that gold rush did not start in this body, it started with the
other body. I would like to clarify the legal situation on these
projects.
The law governing aviation discretionary funds requires the FAA to
establish, and they have established for decades, a priority system to
decide which projects will get these very limited funds. The highest
priority goes to projects that will bring airports into compliance with
safety standards. Next are projects that allow the airport to
accommodate large aircraft. The next is standards, standards that
continue with other forms of development in aviation.
Many of the projects listed in this manager's report, I concede, are
of sufficient quality in and of themselves, as we have analyzed them,
to qualify for funding under these established FAA standards in the
regular order. But what I want to point out is that aviation is not
like highways. An improvement to a highway project in Boston does not
necessarily benefit California, but in the national system of
integrated airports, an improvement in one airport, a major hub
airport, means potentially a vast improvement for all of aviation.
The FAA should have and does have discretion to fund improvements to
increase capacity, to improve safety, to reduce bottlenecks. If next
year we have the same kind of delays and problems in aviation that we
have had this year and last year, travelers might not feel so
comfortable traveling in an aviation system designed by Congress.
I want to make it clear that the language in a report cannot override
a priority system established under the governing law. I would like to
quote from the decision of the Comptroller General that was found in a
report expressing congressional preference.
The Comptroller General found that Congress cannot require the Navy
to select a particular aircraft the language in the committee report
wanted the Navy to require and to abandon normal procurement
procedures.
The Comptroller General wrote: ``It is our view that when Congress
merely appropriates lump sum amounts without statutorily restricting
what can be done with those funds, a clear inference arises that it
does not intend to impose legally binding restrictions, and indicia in
committee reports and other legislative history as to how the funds
should be or are expected to be spent do not establish any legal
requirements on Federal agencies.''
Accordingly, I believe it is incumbent on FAA to continue to use its
priority system to award discretionary funds and assure that those
funds will be directed to the greatest safety benefit and not to the
specific, narrowly drawn, targeted little projects listed in this
manager's report.
As chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation for many years, I
steadfastly resisted designating projects in our authorizing bill and
have continued, as ranking member of the full committee, to resist such
designation. It should not be done in a manager's report of
appropriations.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf), for all his hard work, I thank him very much. As a new member on
the subcommittee, I do appreciate the gentleman's diligence, his
sincerity, as well as his equal handling of us as we worked together in
a bipartisan way on this committee, and thanks to Mr. John Blazey and
his staff for all the work they have done in working with us.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Sabo) for his style, grace, and hard work as he works together
with all of us to make sure that our transportation needs are met on
our side of the aisle; and to Cheryl Smith on the staff, as well.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the transportation bill that we
have before us. It is a good bill, but it is not a perfect bill, as
many things are not in the world that we live in today.
The bill is good, and I want to make a special point to thank the
staff on both sides of the aisle for working with Michigan on our
transit concerns. We do have a problem in Michigan, and it is a long
problem. I hope as this Congress moves forward in the 107th Congress
that we will address that problem.
Our State Department of Transportation must not work around the
appropriations process, must not overlook the Members on both sides of
the aisle, and must work with us as members of appropriations, both the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and myself, who represent our
State and our entire State delegation.
I thank the staff for their work with us to make sure that all the
Members' concerns are addressed. I pledge that I will continue to do
that with the Members, and will hope our State Department of
Transportation will do the same, and not try to usurp our
appropriations authority.
I want to speak briefly on the .08 blood alcohol level. I think it is
wonderful and it will save at least 500 lives, as has been mentioned,
but we can do more, and not just on this issue, by having further,
stronger laws that will save more American lives. The .08 by itself, it
will save some, but I think we can do better. We can enforce open
container laws. We can have administrators revoking licenses and not
waiting for a judicial decision. We can also have mandatory blood
testing after accidents to encourage people not to drink. I think all
of that must work together if in fact we are going to really address
drunk driving in our country. It is a problem. This may be a first
step, but we need to do more.
The chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) our ranking member, I thank them
for their time, for their insistence that we bring a bill that provides
safety for our American citizens and also addresses the nation's
highway needs.
Transit in America is still important. Many people in America do not
drive cars, so our highways have to be safe, our transit systems have
to be adequate, and we have to continue to work together.
I rise in support of the conference report. The process is a little
less than
[[Page H9024]]
what is desired, but I am happy that we have reached this point. I urge
my colleagues to vote for the transportation conference report.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Granger).
(Ms. GRANGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
{time} 1115
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
fiscal year 2001 Transportation appropriations conference report. Not
only does this legislation continue our critical investment in our
Nation's infrastructure, it also appropriates $5 billion to pay down
the national debt.
This legislation is consistent with the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century. It provides an increase of almost 7 percent in
Federal aid highway spending. Outlays, mostly needed for transportation
infrastructure, are up 13.3 percent.
The conference agreement also includes $720 million for emergency
relief for highways to cover the cost of highway repairs resulting from
previous disasters. In short, this legislation addresses our Nation's
transportation needs.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to serve on the Subcommittee on
Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, and I want to thank
the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) for the outstanding job
that he has done as chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank John Blazey, Rich Efford, Stephanie
Gupta, and Linda Muir for all their hard work and long hours. I feel
fortunate to have the opportunity to work with such an outstanding
staff and committee.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Northern Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), my friend and colleague and the ranking member of
the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations,
very much for yielding to me for his leadership on this bill, and I
thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the
Subcommittee on Transportation for his exemplary leadership.
This bill is balanced. It is fair. It is responsible. It maintains
and in fact improves our Nation's entire transportation infrastructure.
I urge that it be supported. It also makes our roadways safer by
encouraging States to adopt stricter thresholds for drunk driving. It
contains a matter of vital importance to the entire mid-Atlantic
corridor and to interstate commerce.
As Members may be aware, this metropolitan Washington region suffers
from the second worst traffic congestion in the entire country. No
place is this problem more critical than at the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
It was built 40 years ago. It is crumbling before our eyes. Ten lanes
of traffic are having to converge into six lanes.
We are told that, if we do not get this bridge rebuilt within 5 to 6
years, we may have to divert 20,000 trucks from being able to cross the
bridge. Not only would that be a nightmare scenario for the region, but
it would be a severe handicap to this Nation's economy. So the $600
million that is included in this bridge is critically important.
I would remind any Members that have questions about this, this is a
federally owned bridge. It is a Federal responsibility. It will be
turned over to the States as soon as it is reconstructed, as soon as we
have a new bridge built. The States will pick up the financing from
here on this. But this was necessary, and it was necessary now.
I am very appreciative, not only to all the Members of the
subcommittee, its leadership, its staff, but also the Members of the
regional delegation on the House and Senate side who worked together in
a bipartisan constructive manner.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia
(Chairman Wolf) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Transportation
bill, and I wanted to congratulate both the gentleman from Virginia
(Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the
ranking member. I want to particularly thank the gentleman from
Virginia (Chairman Wolf) for his courageous leadership on the .08
issue. We have been fighting for this a very long time. Without his
hard work, we would not be at this point today.
When I first introduced this legislation 3 years ago, I knew that it
was going to be an uphill road to victory. I also knew that this was
the right thing for the American people.
Quite simply, this is about saving lives. Five hundred to 600 lives
will be saved in the United States each year when every State adopts
the .08 standard. Tens of thousands of injuries will be avoided. These
two statistics are too compelling to ignore.
What we are talking about is not putting our values on someone else.
All we are saying is, if one is going to drink, just do not drive. This
is the right standard. It is the right time.
We know that the relative risk of a fatality on the road is 11 times
greater at BACs between .08 and .09.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman
Wolf) again for his courageous work on this important issue.
I rise today in strong support of the Transportation Appropriations
bill. I am also pleased to announce that today, Congress is standing up
in defense of safer roads. Congress is poised with this vote to make
.08 the law of the land.
I want to thank Chairman Wolf for his courageous leadership on this
issue. Without his hard work, we wouldn't be at this point today.
When I first introduced legislation on this issue three years ago, I
knew that it was going to be an uphill road to victory. I also knew
that this was the right thing for the American people.
Quite simply, this is about saving lives. 500-600 lives will be saved
in the U.S. each year when every state adopts the .08 standard. And
tens of thousands of injuries will be avoided. These statistics are too
compelling to ignore. There are just too many accidents involving .08
drivers for us to stand by. This is the right standard and this is the
right time.
We know that the relative risk of a fatality on the road is eleven
times greater at BACs between .05 and .09 than with no alcohol in your
blood. And the Administration and the Department of Transportation
released two reports last month showing that .08 works for states that
have already adopted it. In fact, Illinois alone, which adopted .08 in
1997, has seen a 13.7% decline in the number of drunk drivers involved
in fatal crashes.
We have fought so hard for this standard over the cries of the
restaurant and liquor lobbies. They say that ordinary people who have a
glass of wine with dinner will be pulled over and charged with drunk
driving. That's simply not true. It takes four drinks in one hour on an
empty stomach to get a 170 pound man to .08. No dinner, just drinks. It
takes four of them. That's a far cry from a glass of wine with dinner.
We knew this then and we know it now. Drinking and driving do not
mix.
Again, I just want to express my great pleasure to announce this
important victory today. I urge my colleagues to support this
conference report.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman
Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), ranking member, for
the work they have done on a bill that has very many good things,
whether it be the Coast Guard, the .08 blood alcohol level, highway
safety and construction, and mass transit.
But I do have two problems with this bill. The first is this bill is
indicative of the fact that the budget process in this Congress has
become a fallacy. This bill is over the House mark, it is over the
Senate mark, and it is over the administration's mark. It is leading us
down the path to where we have eroded or evaded the Budget Act and even
the Unified Budget Act of 1968. So I think that is a problem in this
bill.
Second of all, I have to say this bill includes language which
prohibits the Houston Metro from using its share of Federal funds for a
light rail project. The Houston Metro is the only agency in the country
that has that prohibition. It seems to me this is a case of
[[Page H9025]]
Washington knows best, telling the City of Houston and its areas what
it is going to do.
They are going to build the rail project anyway with their own money.
But Houston will be the only city that is not allowed to use Federal
funds. I think this is a mistake, and I think it is a problem in this
bill. I would hope in the future we can correct it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Sabo) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his
leadership and his excellent efforts with the issue of .08. I think
that we will save lives, and I appreciate having the opportunity to
vote on this legislation that includes this instructive and positive
legislative initiative.
Let me thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking
member, as well for his kindness; and I say that to him on behalf of
the constituents of the 18th Congressional District. We appreciate the
gentleman's balance and also his interest in our issues, and that of
all of our colleagues.
This bill has some very good elements: The ATP program in Houston for
$2.5 million and a connectivity program for $750,000 that is very
important to the residents of the third ward.
The pipeline safety allocation is very important to me, and the
transit programs are likewise. I am delighted that we saw fit to ensure
that more people in this Nation have rail. I might cite for my
colleagues, Atlanta, Baltimore, Canton, Akron, Cleveland, Florida, and
a variety of other places.
So my concern is, Mr. Speaker, that here we are in Washington
dictating to the citizens of Houston that they cannot have light rail.
This is the mayor of the city of Houston, the county judge, the
partnership, residents and others who have expressed their desire for
light rail.
I would simply say that I applaud this bill. I will support this
bill. But I look forward to the needs of the people of Houston being
addressed in the next session so that we can move forward on our light
rail project.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has
4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) has
30 seconds remaining.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia
(Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the
ranking member, for doing an excellent job with this bill. I am going
to vote for this bill.
I have served on this subcommittee every year that I have been on the
Committee on Appropriations and have dealt with transportation problems
in many different cities as well as transportation issues for the City
of Houston and the metroplex around Houston. Up until now, we have had
excellent opportunity to work with Houston.
Unfortunately, we have a new mass transit system that has decided to
break what I thought was a model for the Nation of different
transportation entities working together and sometimes overlapping and
being concerned about mobility in Houston. We now have a metro system
that has decided that they are going to build a megamulti-billion
dollar rail system without the input of the people of Houston, without
the people of Houston even gathering the information that would deal
with this.
It is the age-old bureaucratic strategy of let us build a little
bitty short system, and then when it does not work, we can force the
people into building a bigger system.
Now, I have very serious concerns about that. I especially have
concerns that, when we have a full-funding agreement on the mass
transit monies going to Houston, that they want to come in and
undermine that full funding agreement by taking some of that money and
putting it into a rail system that has not been designed or considered
by everybody in the Houston metroplex.
Therefore, I told the Houston Metro System that, when they get their
act together, when they look at congestion studies, when they look at
the regional mobility plan, then we can talk about a rail system as
part of that overall regional mobility plan.
I have one other issue. I am for .08. Texas has .08. But I have very
strong concerns about the Federal Government blackmailing States into
doing something that maybe the States have a different idea in how to
solve the problem.
But I am going to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do
so also.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very
much for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, let me quickly say with great respect to the gentleman
from Houston, Texas (Mr. DeLay), that the City of Houston, the County
of Harris has a regional mobility plan. In fact, County Judge Echols
has sent this multipage document to all Members of Congress. In
addition, the Houston Partnership right now is involved in a regional
plan, an additional plan.
I know that the Congress needs to move forward on this bill, and we
cannot debate local issues. But I hope the Congress realizes this is
not a local issue. This is a question of equality and parity when all
of the other areas of the Nation are able to get dollars for light
rail. I think, if the community wants light rail and meets the
requirement, then this Congress should give them consideration. I look
forward in the future Congresses and elsewhere to provide that for my
community.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me just comment a little bit on the
situation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). Nobody has been a
stronger advocate in my times on the committee for mass transit in
Houston than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). He had the
subcommittee go down there years ago to look at it, and I understand
what he is trying to do. The same thing has happened in other parts of
the country. People want to immediately move to rail.
In my area, we eventually would like to have rail going out to Dulles
Airport. I support that. But our intermediate step is the rapid bus
transit which will be for one-tenth of the cost. In some respects, that
is really modeled after what has been taking place in Houston. So what
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is saying is one moves to that and
then afterward. So I think he has been a very strong advocate for the
entire time.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I echo the comments of
the regional delegation who worked together. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge,
it is the whole north-south corridor which, if it ever collapsed or
prohibited the use of trucks, it would just devastate the economy of
the Northeast.
The Coast Guard, as the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) said,
the necessary increase, particularly for the men and women who serve
and are risking their lives; the increase for drug interdiction, the
increase for the FAA; the .08 which will save so many lives.
So in closing, I urge passage. Again, I want to thank the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo). I could not have had a better working
relationship. God bless. Thank you.
I urge the passage of the bill.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of this
conference report. I say reluctant because there is a provision in this
bill which tramples state rights.
The conference agreement requires states to adopt a .08 blood alcohol
law and provides highway sanctions beginning in fiscal year 2004.
Reductions in highway funds of 2 percent per year would be phased in,
not to exceed 8 percent, for those states that are in noncompliance.
Now I strongly support measures to discourage drunk driving. But this
provision disregards the right of states to regulate alcohol sales.
Such a provision should not be included as a part of this conference
report and it should have been rejected.
Unfortunately it was not. And as opposed as I am to this provision I
am going to vote for this report. It provides much needed federal funds
to increase the capacity and safety of our nation's transportation
infrastructure. In total, the bill provides nearly $17.8 billion in
discretionary budget authority, an increase of
[[Page H9026]]
$3.5 billion over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Outlays, mostly
needed for transportation infrastructure, are up 13.3 percent compared
to the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The conference agreement
provides $12 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration--$2.5
billion (25 percent) over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and 7
percent more than the Administration's request. Funding for the airport
improvement program is $3.2 billion, an increase of $1.25 billion--or
64 percent--over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. It also includes
$5 billion is provided in the conference report to reduce the public
debt.
Thus, despite my misgivings about the impact of this bill on state's
rights. I will vote for this bill. However, I will continue to work
with my colleagues to overturn this provision or to lessen its impact
on state's rights.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take this opportunity to
congratulate all those responsible for bringing to the House Floor a
transportation appropriations measure that will be of great benefit to
this country. I know a lot of hard work went into the crafting of this
conference report and I want everyone who contributed to it to know
that they have my thanks.
Assuming this legislation is signed into law, as I surely hope it
will be, Americans will benefit in a number of ways.
First, they will be able to travel more quickly and easily thanks to
the multitude of highway, rail, airport and mass transit projects that
are funded by this measure. With traffic congestion growing on our
existing roads and at our airports, that is very important.
Second, they will know that the taxes they have paid to finance
highway and airport improvements are being spent for those purposes. In
this day and age, when cynicism about government is all too prevalent,
it is equally important that money raised for a particular purpose be
spent as intended.
And last but not least, they will have reason to believe that the
foundation is being laid for a transportation network that will meet
people's needs for decades to come. Given the increase in commuting
times in many of our metropolitan areas, that is reassuring.
A good example of why people should derive reassurance from this
legislation can be found in the transportation infrastructure
investments it makes in the Chicago area. Not only does it provide
funding for three METRA commuter rail projects in the region, including
one in the district I am privileged to represent, but it also funds a
pair of Chicago Transit Authority route rehabilitation projects. In
addition, and this is very reassuring, the language and the explanation
of the conference report pave the way for Full Funding Grant Agreements
for all five of those projects, which greatly improves the prospects
that they will be completed on schedule.
In addition, the conference report makes several investments in the
development of several future-oriented intelligent transportation
systems in the Chicagoland, including one for Lake County, Illinois,
much of which I am privileged to represent. Also, it funds a study of
the possibility of extending METRA's commuter rail service from Chicago
all the way to Milwaukee, plus it provides money for bus routes and
numerous other transportation improvements.
All of these things bode well for the residents of my district, the
people of the Chicago area and all of those who come to the Chicagoland
on vacation or to conduct business. On their behalf, I would like to
reiterate my thanks to all those responsible and to urge enactment of
this legislation.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
4475, the FY 2001 Transportation and Related Agencies Conference
Report. This bill includes significant funding for projects that will
ease traffic congestion in Northern Virginia which was the dubious
distinction of the second worst traffic congestion in the nation. Most
importantly, I would like to applaud the inclusion of $600 million for
the replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. This is money that is
desperately needed to fund a vital East Coast Interstate link.
Additionally, this bill contains important funding for other Northern
Virginia projects including $50 million for rail out the Dulles
Corridor, $3 million for bus funding in Prince William County, $500,000
to complete the Fairfax County trail system, $500,000 for the Fair
Lakes League Shuttle, $500,000 for Potomac River Jet ferry boat funding
for ferry service from Prince William County to the Navy Yard and
Washington Harbour, and $5 million for 14th Street Bridge improvements.
Since I first came to Congress in 1995, finding the appropriate
solution for replacing and paying for a new Woodrow Wilson Bridge has
been one of my top priorities. We face a critical time frame to follow
in replacing the old bridge structure in order to avoid regional and
eastern seaboard gridlock. The replacement of this rapidly aging
structure is urgent and desperately needed. The $600 million we secured
today brings the total federal commitment to $1.5 billion. This will
fulfill our obligation to this project.
For quite some time, the federal government and Virginia and Maryland
have known that the bridge needed to be replaced, or truck traffic
would have to be rerouted throughout the entire Washington Metropolitan
area. However, there has been ongoing debate about the level of
commitment the federal government needed to provide to the project.
That is because the Woodrow Wilson Bridge is truly a unique
circumstance. It is the only federally-owned bridge in the United
States, it is the midpoint between Maine and Florida on Interstate 95,
it is technically located in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of
Columbia, and it links the Capital Beltway at its southern crossing
point between Maryland and Virginia. These factors have all combined to
significantly shorten the life of the current bridge and create the
dire circumstance that our region and the east coast faces.
As the midpoint between Maine and Florida in the Interstate system,
it carries an unusually large amount of interstate commerce up and down
the east coast. In 1993, it was estimated by the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics that 1.3 percent of gross domestic product
carried by truck crossed the Wilson Bridge. That is $58 billion, a
figure that I am certain has only increased in the past seven years.
Four hundred and fifty miles is the average distance traveled by truck
shipments once they have crossed the bridge. It is important to note
the many cities that fall within that 450 mile travel shed: Boston,
Baltimore, Philadelphia, Norfolk, New York City, Richmond, Raleigh,
Newark, Savannah, Hartford, and Trenton. Forty-nine percent of heavy
trucks, or 7,000 trucks crossing the bridge go beyond the immediate
area. That means that consumers up and down the east coast would face
higher prices for products and services if truck traffic had to be
rerouted and delivery of products was slowed.
As the southern crossing point for the Capital Beltway, it has
carried more traffic and heavy trucks than it was designed to hold.
When the bridge was opened in 1961, it was designed as a lightweight,
flexible structure to serve a 4-lane beltway without heavy truck
traffic. As early as 1969, the bridge began carrying more traffic than
its designed capacity of 75,000 vehicles. In 1975, the decision was
made that Interstate 95 should not be routed through Washington, D.C.
as originally planned, and the bridge is now the default southern
crossing for I-95. To accommodate that change, the beltway was widened
to eight lanes but the structural limitations of the bridge meant that
it could not be widened. While we may all now agree with the 1975
decision, it had serious implications for the life span of the Woodrow
Wilson Bridge. In 1988, the bridge begins to carry 150,000 vehicles
daily. This history doomed the original bridge structure to fail much
earlier than anticipated and put us in the situation we face today.
In TEA-21, this Committee and the 105th Congress recognized the
federal responsibility for the bridge and funded the construction of
the bridge at $900 million. As I have said, now we have come up with
the additional $600 million federal commitment to allow this project to
go forward. Virginia and Maryland must now make their funding
commitment available so this urgent project goes forward on time.
While the Wilson Bridge project will receive a large amount of
federal funding, without this commitment for the Bridge, the entire
Washington Metropolitan area could face potential gridlock. One of the
nation's strongest regional economies and the seat of our federal
government could face a grave threat should this bridge project not
move forward in a timely manner. As we have seen in the past, a
shutdown Wilson Bridge can shut down this region and our Nation's
Capital.
I am also proud that we have been able to include an additional $50
million for rail out the Dulles Corridor. This follows on the $86
million I was able to secure in the TEA-21 legislation in the 105th
Congress and the $25 million we were able to secure in last year's
transportation appropriations bill. This is a critically needed project
that will serve the ongoing growth out the Dulles Corridor. Rail to
Dulles will significantly ease congestion in the Tysons Corner region
and through Reston and Herndon in my Congressional District.
I would also like to note the inclusion of three projects that will
help ease congestion in the I-95 corridor and for my constituents in
Prince William County. H.R. 4475 provides funding for necessary
improvements on the 14th Street Bridge. These improvements will
significantly relieve the bottleneck that occurs during the morning and
evening rush hours. This bill includes $3 million for bus funding for
Prince William County to replace an aging fleet. Also, it includes
$500,000 for funding for ferry service from Prince William County to
the Washington Navy Yard and Washington Harbour. These two items will
provide alternatives to those who otherwise face long commutes through
the Springfield Interchange replacement project.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge serves the people
who serve our
[[Page H9027]]
government in all three branches of government. Gridlock in the
Nation's Capital is one of the gravest threats facing the daily
operation of our Republic. I would also like to thank my good friend,
Mr. Wolf for his leadership on this important bill and his leadership
chairing the Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations. His
commitment to providing the necessary transportation funding for this
nation's vital projects is enabling all our communities address the
tremendous growth we are undergoing nationwide and ensuring that our
families are able to spend less time in traffic and more time at home.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss H.R. 4475, the fiscal
year 2001 transportation appropriations bill.
I am pleased that the conference report honors the funding guarantees
in TEA-21 and AIR-21, while still providing sufficient funds for other
important transportation programs such as the Coast Guard and AMTRAK.
As you know, I have long believed that we could honor the principle
of dedicating trust fund revenues to their intended purposes while
still maintaining sufficient funding for other important transportation
programs, and this bill proves it.
By fully funding TEA-21 and AIR-21, this bill will have far-reaching
impacts on the quality of life in our communities, the nation's
economy, and our competitiveness in the world marketplace.
The benefits of shortened travel times, increased productivity, and
improved safety will affect every American and every business everyday.
In particular, the resources provided by this bill are an important
first step toward reducing the aviation gridlock that we began to
experience last summer.
I am disappointed by the conferees' decision to include many
legislative and unauthorized provisions that, had they been included in
the House bill, would have violated the rules of the House.
I am particularly concerned by the provision that will penalize each
state that does not adopt a legal blood alcohol content limit of .08
percent by reducing that state's federal highway funding.
Congress addressed the problem of drunk driving most recently 2 years
ago in TEA-21.
In TEA-21, Congress provided a generous financial incentive to states
that adopt .08 BAC laws, as well as incentives for a number of other
anti-drunk driving approaches that have proven very effective in
targeting the most egregious offenders.
TEA-21 conferees wanted to encourage states to adopt a .08 BAC law,
but did not want to do so at the expense of other, more effective
programs that the states were employing to reduce drunk driving
accidents.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as the committee of
jurisdiction over this provision, will look at the .08 funding sanction
very carefully in the next Congress to determine whether or not it is
appropriate and effective.
In addition, I am disappointed that the conference report alters the
distribution of funds made available by the revenue aligned budget
authority provision of TEA-21, which increases or decreases funding
based on actual gas tax revenues deposited in the Highway Trust Fund.
In doing so, the conference report alters the distribution of
contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund that was painstakingly
arrived at by the TEA-21 conferees.
I am also concerned about the unprecedented earmarking of airport
improvement program funds in the report accompanying this bill.
The AIP discretionary funds earmarked by this report are funds that
the FAA should be targeting to the highest priority safety, security
and capacity enhancing projects.
FAA has its own internal priority system for deciding which airports
should get the few discretionary dollars that are available.
This system puts the highest priority on projects that will enhance
safety. That is entirely appropriate.
In issuing discretionary AIP grants, I would urge the FAA to stick to
its priority system and not be swayed by earmarks in the joint
explanatory statement accompanying this conference report, which after
all, are not legally binding.
If, nevertheless, the FAA chooses to fund these earmarks, I urge the
FAA to look, in the first instance, to the airport's entitlement funds
to provide the money.
Finally, I am also disappointed that the conference report includes
funding for transit new start projects that were neither authorized in
TEA-21 nor cleared by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Demand for new starts funding already far exceeds available
resources. Funding unauthorized projects spreads limited resources too
broadly, and will produce a lower return on federal investment.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
conference report and commend the Committee for its hard work.
I am especially pleased and delighted because this Conference Report
includes funding for the New Jersey Community Development Center's
``Transportation Opportunity Center,'' which is located in Paterson,
New Jersey.
The Transportation Opportunity Center will demonstrate the vital role
that transportation and the transportation industry plays in extending
economic opportunity to low income individuals--particularly those
moving from welfare to work.
The Center is in the heart of Paterson's historic district and will
be used to educate low-income citizens about using existing public
transportation to access suburban-based jobs.
It is through innovative programs like the Transportation Opportunity
Center that we can continue to increase access to transportation for
low-income citizens who are striving to participate in this prosperous
economy.
These changes are good for our environment, good for our economy, and
good for our quality of life.
I have said so many times--and I think you would all agree--that we
do not invest in our transportation system merely to improve roads and
bridges.
Transportation is not merely about getting from point A to point B.
We invest in transportation to improve the very quality of life for our
citizens.
That is what this project will do.
Again, I thank the Committee for its hard work, and I urge my
colleagues to support this Conference Report.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 344,
nays 50, not voting 39, as follows:
[Roll No. 516]
YEAS--344
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Dickey
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Granger
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
[[Page H9028]]
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--50
Archer
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bentsen
Boehner
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Chabot
Coburn
Cox
Cubin
DeMint
Doggett
Gillmor
Graham
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hayworth
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Largent
Obey
Oxley
Petri
Pitts
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Stearns
Stump
Taylor (MS)
Thornberry
Toomey
Velazquez
NOT VOTING--39
Ackerman
Baker
Ballenger
Berman
Blumenauer
Campbell
Carson
Clay
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Eshoo
Franks (NJ)
Goss
Hansen
Hefley
Hutchinson
King (NY)
Klink
Lazio
Lewis (GA)
McCollum
McIntosh
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Paul
Rangel
Reyes
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Spence
Strickland
Talent
Vento
Waters
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wise
{time} 1150
Messrs. BENTSEN and HERGER changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. LUTHER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
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.
____________________