[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H3539-H3549]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2299, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
             AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 178, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page H3540]]

                              H. Res. 178

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2299) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived except as follows: beginning with ``for 
     administration'' on page 13, line 24, through ``section 
     40117;'' on line 25; beginning with ``Provided'' on page 14, 
     line 12, through line 20; beginning with ``Provided'' on page 
     15, line 9, through line 14; beginning with ``Provided'' on 
     page 23, line 20, through page 24, line 2; ``notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law'' on page 26, line 10; beginning 
     with ``together with'' on page 26, line 15, through the 
     closing quotation mark on line 16; page 31, line 9 through 
     ``as amended,'' on line 10; page 38, line 23, through page 
     45, line 2; page 50, line 22, through page 51, line 15; page 
     55, line 6, through line 13; page 56, line 16, through page 
     57, line 2. Where points of order are waived against part of 
     a paragraph, points of order against a provision in another 
     part of such paragraph may be made only against such 
     provision and not against the entire paragraph. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.


                    Unfunded Mandate Point of Order

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a 
point of order against consideration of the rule (H. Res. 178) because 
it contains an unfunded Federal mandate.
  Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules 
Committee may not waive this point of order.
  In the rule of H. Res. 178, and I quote: ``All points of order 
against consideration of the bill are waived.'' Therefore, I make a 
point of order that this bill may not be considered pursuant to section 
426.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974. According to section 426(b)(2) of the act, the 
gentleman must specify language in the resolution that has that effect. 
Having met this threshold burden to identify the specific language of 
the resolution under section 426(b)(2), the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran) and a Member opposed will each control 10 minutes of debate 
on the question of consideration under section 426(b)(4).
  Following the debate, the Chair will put the question of 
consideration, to wit: Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order because 
section 343 of this appropriations act directs the local transit 
authority to change the name of its transit station at Ronald Reagan 
Washington National Airport with local funds. The cost to comply with 
this provision is estimated to be $405,476; but the principle being 
violated is far more costly.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the local jurisdictions which 
comprised the transit board elected not to change the name of the Metro 
station at the airport. The board determined that the estimated cost of 
these changes would be better spent on other priorities.
  In addition to the rule that requires the request to come from the 
local jurisdiction in which the station is located, the regional 
transit board has a long-standing policy of not naming their transit 
stations after people, preferring instead that they be named after the 
location that they are serving.
  At one time many Democrats wanted the RFK Stadium stop to be named 
after Robert Kennedy, but that suggestion was rejected because Stadium-
Armory is more descriptive, and named after a place rather than a 
person.

                              {time}  1230

  In my view, that was a correct use of local taxpayer resources. I 
have to think that if President Reagan were not tragically suffering 
from Alzheimer's disease, he would join the board and the local 
governments in resisting these heavy-handed tactics of the Federal 
Government in forcing the local government to act contrary to its best 
judgment.
  In 1964 following the tragic death of President Kennedy, an 
overzealous Johnson administration by executive fiat renamed Cape 
Canaveral Cape Kennedy without consulting the local jurisdictions. Had 
the Johnson administration consulted the local jurisdictions, they 
would have learned the importance of the name Canaveral dating back to 
the time of the Spanish explorers and a part of the cape's identity, 
culture and heritage for the succeeding 400 years. For the next 10 
years, the local communities resisted the Federal action, preferring 
instead to use the term Canaveral. In the early 1970s, the Florida 
State legislature showed its defiance by enacting legislation to rename 
the cape Cape Canaveral. By default and Federal inaction, that name 
still stands.
  In the instance of the airport, the localities were never consulted 
on the 1998 act to rename the airport. Had Congress conducted hearings 
and allowed local elected officials to testify, it would have learned 
that Washington National Airport already had a name in honor of our 
first President, George Washington, one of our founding fathers, 
commander in chief of the Continental Army during the War of 
Independence, our first President and a resident of northern Virginia, 
living just down the very road that runs by the airport. The airport 
was literally built on land owned by George Washington's family.
  Recognizing the direct relationship and strong historical roots of 
the property, President Roosevelt asked that the airport's main 
terminal, completed in 1946, be designed to resemble Mount Vernon. That 
resemblance is now a historic landmark.
  Like the renaming of Cape Canaveral, resentment of the name change is 
on the minds of northern Virginia's local residents. We had a 
compromise proposal to rename the new terminal after President Reagan. 
That was rejected even though its existence bears testimony to the 
success of devolving the operations of the federally owned airport to a 
local authority. When it was under Federal control, no capital 
improvements were undertaken. Now the local authority has invested a 
billion dollars in capital improvements with non-Federal funds.
  Substantial honors have already been conferred upon President Reagan 
and more will be. There is nearly a $1 billion Ronald Reagan building 
and international trade center. Other than the Pentagon, it is the 
largest Federal building in existence. It is just a few blocks from the 
White House. We have a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. And, of course, 
the naming of the airport. President Reagan's legacy will be defined by 
what he did as President, not by what we do for him. I am sure he would 
join me in opposing this provision that mandates the local transit 
authority rename the transit station.
  In referencing the controversy of the Metro station issue in his 
weekly column, George Will said:

       How many ways are there to show misunderstanding of 
     Reagan's spirit? Let us count the zealots' ways.
       Political freedom implies freedom from political 
     propaganda--from being incessantly bombarded by government-
     imposed symbols and messages intended to shape public 
     consciousness in conformity with a contemporary agenda. Such 
     bombardment is unquestionably the aim of some Reaganite 
     monument mongers. They have the mentality that led to the 
     lunatic multiplication of Lenin portraits, busts and statues 
     throughout the Evil Empire.

  Let us resist the urge to establish Ronald Reagan's legacy by 
renaming everything after the former President, thereby trivializing 
the principles that he stood for.
  I urge that we oppose this unfunded Federal mandate.

[[Page H3541]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to take this opportunity to put to rest fears that this 
provision would violate the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. While a 
review by the Congressional Budget Office determined the requirement to 
rename the station to be an intergovernmental mandate under the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, renaming the station falls well below the 
2001 threshold of $56 million. In fact, this project is estimated to 
cost approximately $500,000. I submit CBO's findings for the Record.

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC, June 25, 2001.
     Hon. James P. Moran,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman: As you requested, the Congressional 
     Budget Office has reviewed an amendment to H.R. 2299, the 
     Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2002, that was adopted by the 
     Appropriations Committee on June 20, 2001. The amendment 
     would require the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
     Authority (WMATA) to redesignate the National Airport Station 
     as the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Station, and 
     to change all signs, maps, directories, and other 
     documentation to reflect the new name. Our review was 
     confined to determining whether that requirement constitutes 
     an intergovernmental mandate as defined by the Unfunded 
     Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and, if so, whether the costs of 
     that mandate would exceed the threshold established in that 
     act.
       UMRA defines an intergovernmental mandate as an enforceable 
     duty imposed upon state, local, or tribal governments, unless 
     that duty is imposed as a condition of federal assistance. 
     Because the requirement to rename the station is not a 
     condition of federal assistance, it would be considered an 
     intergovernmental mandate under UMRA. No funding is provided 
     in the bill to cover the costs of complying with the mandate. 
     However, based on information from WMATA, CBO estimates that 
     those costs would be less than $500,000, well below the 
     threshold established in UMRA ($56 million in 2001).
       If you wish further information, we will be pleased to 
     provide it. The CBO contact is Susan Tompkins.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Barry B. Anderson
                                   (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

  My colleague may claim as he did last night in the Committee on Rules 
that this provision is impractical. However, in the past, Metro has 
made name changes to other existing stations, changes that have been 
just as long and in some cases longer. A station in Virginia that is 
George Mason University, you would see GMU University. And so we could 
say RR National Airport. We could look at other provisions where Metro 
has worked on it.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note, as I who have 
always watched closely unfunded mandates to make sure that we are not 
saddling local government with an unfair burden. I have cited for the 
record the threshold of $56 million. But I also must bring out 
something else very important to my colleagues, that is, when we look 
at the report which we will consider in the rule and then following as 
the debate goes on the floor for the transportation appropriations 
committee, we will find on page 111 that under section 9, Formula 
Money, that the signs are eligible for funding for the $30 million that 
Metro will receive from the Federal Government as this year's 
allocation of appropriation just under section 9. That is $30 million, 
of which a half a million dollars is eligible for signage.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia helped craft the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act, and in playing such a key role in that creation, 
he should know that these thresholds were instilled to prevent time-
consuming and unwarranted attacks on House legislation. While I 
appreciate my colleague's efforts to uphold the integrity of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, this is clearly a dilatory tactic meant 
to delay consideration of the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, I would just say to my friend, the gentleman from New York, 
that you cannot put a price tag on principle. It is a principle, Ronald 
Reagan's principle, in fact, that we are attempting to uphold here. It 
is being violated with this action.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar).
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of his unfunded mandate point of 
order.
  Section 343 of H.R. 2249 orders the Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Authority to change the Metro stop at the airport to read 
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Station. This is both an 
unfunded mandate and legislation on an appropriations bill and should 
not be protected from points of order by the rule that we consider 
today.
  The Washington Transit Authority is an interstate compact dating back 
to 1967. It has a specific written policy in place adopted by the board 
of directors covering names of its stations. The specific procedure for 
station name changes says in part that, one, the local jurisdiction in 
which the station is located shall endorse and formally request a name 
change to WMATA's board of directors; two, WMATA's Office of 
Engineering and Architecture will evaluate the proposed name change 
concerning length of name, other factors and provide cost estimates; 
three, the local jurisdiction proposing the name change shall obtain 
community support and bear the cost of the name change; four, the local 
jurisdiction shall then bring the proposal and supporting data to the 
WMATA board for action; and, five, the WMATA board of directors must 
approve the proposal.
  None of this is being followed in the procedure directed in the 
appropriation bill. And the proposers themselves, if this Congress 
tried to do the same thing in their district, would scream to high 
heaven that we are invading local jurisdiction.
  Over the last several years, a number of communities have proposed 
name changes, including local funding for the cost, and have built the 
necessary community support and received WMATA's approval. However, an 
equal number of name-change proposals have been rejected by the WMATA 
board. To cite one example, in 1996 councilman for the District of 
Columbia Jack Evans proposed that the Foggy Bottom-GWU Station be 
changed to include the Kennedy Center. The board rejected the proposal, 
saying in part, quote, ``The board of directors considers name changes 
when they enhance our patrons' ability to orient themselves and 
circulate through the system. To rename stations affording special 
recognition to a specific institution in neighborhoods with many other 
establishments may challenge our ability to provide clear and concise 
public information.''
  Now, this is a proper exercise of local prerogative. No one has ever 
suggested that this decision is disrespectful to the memory of 
President Kennedy. Not at all. But to name a Metro stop for President 
Ronald Reagan meets none of the five tests outlined in the WMATA 
policy. The local community, Arlington, has not proposed it. In fact, 
they do not even support it. And they surely do not want to pay for it.
  To continue the quote of commentator George Will, one of President 
Reagan's strongest supporters, about this Metro stop: ``There is 
something very un-Reaganesque about trying to plaster his name all over 
the country the way Lenin was plastered over Eastern Europe, Mao over 
China and Saddam Hussein all over Iraq.''
  We ought not to sully the legacy of President Reagan by going against 
one of his fundamental principles. Leave local control to the States, 
to the cities. Give them due respect.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very interesting that we hear 
this cry that this is an unfunded mandate. I would like to make a 
couple of points about that.
  First of all, these same local jurisdictions that Mr. Moran mentions 
are required to abide by OSHA regulations. Would the gentleman from 
Virginia want to oppose OSHA regulations,

[[Page H3542]]

which are unfunded mandates? The answer is no, of course. The same is 
true of EPA regulations, considered an unfunded mandate. And the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, again complied with by the Metro 
authorities. Instead, we have the gentleman rising in opposition to 
putting a proper name of the location and a destination point on the 
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Station. It should not have 
to be this way. We should not be required to have a piece of 
legislation merely to do something correctly, such as putting the 
proper name on the Metro maps, on Metro designations and on the signs.
  Another point I want to make is that no cost was provided here. I 
would like to offer a little bit of history about the Metro: the 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority was conceived by 
Congress. It has been largely funded by Congress. This year in the 
Transportation Appropriations bill alone, over $100 million are from 
U.S. taxpayers to fund the Metro. There is plenty of money to handle 
the cost of signs.
  Let us talk more about the cost of signs. Recently there have been 
seven changes to the Metro in signs. These changes have occurred since 
President Clinton signed the law naming National Airport the Ronald 
Reagan Washington National Airport. That's seven changes at a cost of 
$713,000. I do not know where this half a million dollar figure is 
coming from, but Metro has made seven system-wide changes at a total 
cost of $713,000. So whether it is 100, $125,000, or whatever the cost, 
I am sure there is the necessary amount of money in the over-$100 
million being provided by United States taxpayers all across this 
Nation.
  People from the great State of Kansas who ride this Metro system when 
visiting or working in D.C., are helping subsidize this. I do not think 
it is too much to ask for Metro to list the entire name of a stop, so 
that when people come in from out of town they know that they are going 
to the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Station, a location, a 
destination on the Metro. We are not asking for a great deal.
  This is a request that has been repeated many times since February 6, 
1998. And in this time, there have been these seven changes. There was 
a letter sent in April by 22 Members of Congress asking the Metro 
authorities to change this. It has been completely ignored. This has 
been transformed into a political issue. It should not be. It should 
just be a simple matter of having accurate maps reflecting destination 
points within the Washington area Metro system.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we carry forward with this. 
It is not an unfunded mandate. There is money there. It does not fit 
the definition of an unfunded mandate according to the Congressional 
Budget Office, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) points 
out.
  I request that the Chair rule against this.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to 
share with the gentleman the fact that OSHA is exempt from the unfunded 
mandates law because it is a civil rights provision, and the Federal 
Government only contributes 6 percent of operating costs to the Metro 
system.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr), the original sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, let us put all of our cards on the table. The other side 
has been irritated no end that they are in the minority, and it 
irritated the heck out of them 3 years ago when the name of National 
Airport, over which this Congress has jurisdiction, was changed by 
majority vote of the people of the United States of America through 
their representatives, was changed to reflect Ronald Reagan's name. 
They lost that vote. Get over it, guys. You lost it.
  Not satisfied with that, not satisfied with simply playing by the 
rules and recognizing that the name change went through the Congress, 
was signed by none other than President Bill Clinton, what they are 
doing now is they keep trying to come in the back door. They go to 
their friends on the Metro board, which has never before had a problem 
with any name change. They have operated like any other metropolitan 
transit board. When there is an official name change by law, the 
signage and the literature is changed to reflect that official name. 
Yet this time it is different. The two sides over there have gotten 
together and they have decided, well, what we could not do fairly, let 
us come in through the back door.
  It is time for this Congress to tell these guys to grow up, recognize 
reality, handle this matter the way it has always been handled in the 
past, when there is a name change by law, signed by the President at a 
Federal facility, and it relates thereafter to a Federal transit board 
that receives hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. It is time 
to just simply let them move on, make the name changes that are always 
made.
  In this case there have been not one, not two, but, count them, I 
would say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), seven name 
changes, comprehensive name changes of stations within the Metro 
system, some considerably longer than the now official name of Ronald 
Reagan Washington National Airport. Metro has never had a problem with 
any of those.
  There is nothing defective in this rule. The gentleman on the other 
side knows that, but he is wasting the time of this Congress raising a 
specious unfunded mandate objection. This clearly, Mr. Speaker, is not 
an unfunded mandate. The Metro board receives far more, in excess of 
$100 million, in this upcoming fiscal year for the running of this 
system. This change would cost, at most, several thousand dollars. The 
inflated estimates that we hear from the other side are just inflated 
propaganda estimates. They do not reflect reality. They do not reflect 
the reality of any of the other name changes.
  This is not an unfunded mandate. This is a proper rule, and, as I say 
to the distinguished gentleman on the other side, let this issue die. 
This has never been a problem with this or any other Metro board, I 
would say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Let us move forward. There are other pressing matters that relate to 
the Metro board. I think the gentleman would agree with that. Yet they 
are stubbornly, and with the support of the gentleman, refusing to 
simply do what the board has done in every other instance, and every 
other transit board has always done, whether it is reflecting the name 
of John F. Kennedy or former President Eisenhower or anybody else, and 
simply make the changes and let us move on.
  Would the gentleman agree that that makes sense, let us just move on?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. No, I do not agree. The gentleman's 
recollection of the facts is not accurate.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I take back my time. That is what I 
suspected, and I wanted to give the gentleman the benefit of the doubt 
and get him on record.
  The other side is not interested in just moving on. We are, Mr. 
Speaker. We are not asking for anything out of the ordinary, out of 
standard operating procedure, but to simply say the name of the airport 
has been lawfully changed. It was signed by a Democrat President into 
law over 3 years ago. It is high time that the Metro board did what 
they have done in every other situation. Change the name. Let us move 
on with this rule and move on with the adoption of the appropriations 
bill for the American people.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not in order to force name changes upon 
local governments when they are opposed to it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, just to correct the record, there have 
been eight proposals, as I cited in my opening remarks, in which WMATA 
rejected renaming proposals, some of them equally as long as this one.
  Secondly, the naming of National Airport was flawed in its inception.

[[Page H3543]]

Some years ago when Senator Dole proposed changing the name of Dulles 
Airport, his legislation left it up to the airport authority to make 
the decision; did not shove it down their throats.
  As for the gentleman's comment about get over it, we are not the ones 
proposing name changes. It is the other side. I say to the gentleman, 
get over it. Stop acting like a playground bully trying to shove 
Reagan's name down the throats of every place in this country.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge this body not to force Washington's local 
governments to pay $400,000 with local funds to make a name change to a 
transit station. It does not fit in length. It does not fit with the 
policy of naming stations after places rather than people. In 
attempting to honor Reagan, we are contradicting everything he stood 
for. I have several quotes that I ought not to have to share with the 
body where President Reagan urged us to respect local government. This 
is not respecting local government. What is being said is, we stand by 
Reagan's principles as long as it suits our politics. That is not 
right. The principle of deference to local government is correct, and 
in this case it is being violated not only with the naming of the 
airport, but certainly with the naming of the transit station.
  I would urge my colleagues to read George Will. I would urge them to 
read President Reagan's statements, and I would particularly urge them 
to abide by President Reagan's principles of recognition and respect 
for local government.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, to close, we have a rule before us. The gentleman has 
brought a point of order. I disagree with the point of order. While 
very, very sensitive to local government unfunded mandates, we have a 
threshold. It is $56 million. This is a normal course of business, as 
both my colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), have pointed out in their 
opposition to this point of order.
  Most important, I have also cited in my opening that on page 111 of 
the report, which we are going to consider as the rule is hopefully 
passed and the legislation is before the House, where $30 million under 
section 9 in the formula for funding will go to the District of 
Columbia's Metro system. That money is eligible for signs and other 
important aspects of how this legislation has been created within the 
appropriations bill.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has raised the possibility 
that H.R. 2299 may contain an unfunded mandate. I urge that we proceed 
forward so that we may continue consideration of this important 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, an aye vote is a vote for continuation of the 
consideration of the resolution. I urge an aye vote as we move forward 
from the point of order on to the rule and then to the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has 
expired. The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 202, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 190]

                               YEAS--219

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Burton
     Clement
     Doolittle
     Kaptur
     LaTourette
     Maloney (CT)
     Payne
     Platts
     Putnam
     Smith (WA)
     Tauscher
     Watson (CA)

                              {time}  1317

  Messrs. BERRY, STARK, TAYLOR of Mississippi and Ms. KILPATRICK 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. LINDER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H3544]]

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 190, I was 
delayed because of constituents in my office, however, I would have 
voted ``no'' on the question of consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wilson). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 178 is an open rule that provides for 
consideration of H.R. 2299, the Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations for the Fiscal Year ending September 
30, 2002. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of 
the bill.
  The rule also provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally 
divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  The rule provides that the bill shall be considered for amendment by 
paragraph.
  In addition, the rule waives clause 2 of rule XXI (prohibiting 
unauthorized or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill) 
against provisions in the bill, except as otherwise specified in the 
rule.
  Further, the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in 
recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the 
Congressional Record.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Madam Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations has worked diligently 
to produce legislation that meets the Nation's transportation 
priorities. As more and more Americans hit the airways and the highways 
each year, this Congress can take pride in the fact that the underlying 
legislation represents an increase in safety measures and resources in 
every area of our transportation system.
  With all of the travel we do back and forth to our home districts, I 
am sure my colleagues can relate to the frustration of airline delays. 
That frustration is tenfold for countless Americans who rely on air 
travel for work and for pleasure each and every day.
  This bill includes several provisions to address the problem of 
airline delays such as fully funding the ``Free Flight'' program and 
raising funding for the ``Safe Flight 21'' programs. These programs 
develop technologies to aid in the improvement of airway capacity both 
responsibly and prudently.
  Moreover, the bill meets the funding obligation limitation in the 
transportation legislation known as TEA 21, the Transportation Equity 
Act for the 21st Century, by providing $31.7 billion in highway program 
obligation limitations, a 4 percent increase over the current fiscal 
year's level. Continuing our commitment toward investments in the 
Nation's infrastructure, this bill provides nearly $59.1 billion in 
total budgetary resources, a responsible 2 percent increase over the 
current fiscal year.
  This bill, much like last year's, continues to improve and enhance 
motor carrier safety by providing $206 million for motor carrier safety 
grants, an increase of $29 million that is consistent with truck safety 
reforms enacted as part of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 
1999.
  This body recently passed the Coast Guard authorization for fiscal 
year 2002. The Coast Guard's duties include promoting the safety of 
life and property at sea, enforcing all applicable Federal laws on the 
high seas, maintaining navigation aids, protecting the marine 
environment, and securing the safety and security of vessels, ports, 
and waterways.
  The legislation before us today appropriates in the amount of $5 
billion, including $600 million for the Coast Guard's capital needs and 
$300 million available to initiate the ``Deepwater'' program, which 
will fight the scourge of illicit drugs, provide support for offshore 
search and rescue, and work to protect Americans and American shores.
  In addition, the bill provides $521 million for Amtrak's capital 
needs. This funding will cover capital expenses and preventive 
maintenance. This bill sustains the Federal commitment to continue in 
partnership with Amtrak and to help it reach its goal of self-
sufficiency.
  These, along with other modest increases within the bill, will allow 
the Department of Transportation to have greater flexibility and 
oversight control for both large and small projects alike. Ensuring 
proper funding levels ensures the ability of the Department of 
Transportation to do its job, making travel safer and easier for us 
all.
  Safety should remain the Federal Government's highest responsibility 
in the transportation area. Clearly, whether by land, by sea, or by 
air, this bill addresses those needs and concerns, while maintaining 
the fiscal discipline that has been the hallmark of this Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, for their hard 
work on this measure. I would also like to commend the Chair of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation and its ranking member. I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would first like to commend the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for 
all of their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. The members 
of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation have 
brought us a good bill that funds a number of vital transportation 
projects, including one important to my congressional district in the 
Dallas-Fort Worth area.
  I am pleased that the bill will provide $70 million to the North 
Central Light Rail Transit Extension. A bipartisan group of North Texas 
members worked very hard to get this funding that will more than double 
DART's light rail coverage and help stimulate development in the 
Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex.
  However, Madam Speaker, while this is a good bill overall, I cannot 
support the rule supported by the Republican majority because they have 
denied a request made by the Democratic ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation, who sought to offer an important 
amendment relating to the safety issues raised by allowing Mexican 
trucks to enter the United States.
  I must also oppose this rule because of the issue of the Washington 
Metropolitan Transit Authority and the renaming of the National Airport 
Metro stop. Time and again over the last 6\1/2\ years, the Republican 
majority has selectively ignored their own mantra of local control when 
it suits an idealogical purpose. The renaming of this Metro stop 
ignores the wishes of the local authorities, as well as the Member 
representing this area. And for that reason, as well as the fact that 
the Sabo amendment was shut out by the Committee on Rules, I oppose the 
rule.
  One of the greatest defects of this rule is the fact that the 
Republican leadership, working in concert with the President, has 
prevented the House from addressing a serious highway safety issue: the 
safety standards of Mexican trucks entering this country under NAFTA.
  The Bush administration has lifted all restrictions on the movement 
of Mexican trucks on our highways effective January 1, 2002. Next year, 
Mexican trucks will be free to drive across the country, despite clear 
evidence that many are unsafe for our highways.
  In May, the Department of Transportation's Inspector General found 
that the Federal Government needs to add dozens of additional border 
inspectors before lifting restrictions on Mexican trucks. The few 
inspectors now policing the borders found that 40 percent of Mexican 
trucks that are currently allowed into the U.S. were pulled out of 
service for significant violations of our safety standards, much higher 
than the percentage of violations among U.S. trucks.
  So many of these trucks are deemed unsafe for our roads because they 
are

[[Page H3545]]

allowed to operate in Mexico with virtually no oversight. The Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure Democrats, who address these 
issues on a routine basis, also expressed their deep concerns to the 
Committee on Rules about these trucks coming into the United States; 
yet their concerns were also ignored by the Republican leadership.
  For example, Mexican trucks are 10 years older than U.S. trucks, on 
average, and do not comply with weight standards. Mexico has no hours-
of-service regulations, while U.S. drivers can only drive 10 hours per 
shift. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) offered a sensible 
amendment that would require the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration to conduct a safety compliance review of each Mexican 
motor carrier that seeks to operate throughout the United States and to 
require that they be found to be satisfactory under the same standards 
applicable to U.S. carriers before being granted conditional or 
permanent operating authority.
  However, the Republican leadership has refused to allow the House to 
vote on the Sabo amendment. I simply cannot understand why the 
administration and the House leadership oppose what the gentleman has 
proposed. The Republican leadership's refusal to recognize safety 
concerns related to the use of these trucks throughout the United 
States is nothing short of negligent, Madam Speaker.
  This highway safety issue is particularly critical in Texas, as well 
as in my own congressional district where I35 runs through the middle 
of the district, since two-thirds of Mexican trucks enter the U.S. 
through Texas; and many of those trucks will travel on I35 to reach 
interior destinations. But make no mistake: this is a serious safety 
issue coming to highways all across America, now that the President has 
lifted any and all restrictions on Mexican trucks operating on American 
roads and highways.
  This rule also prevents discussion of how to pay for relabeling Metro 
signs for National Airport. In 1998, over strong local opposition, the 
Republican leadership decided to rename Washington's National Airport 
in honor of President Ronald Reagan. Now, in this bill, they are 
requiring the already-strapped Washington Metro Authority to change all 
of their station signs, maps, directories, and documents to reflect the 
new name, but Republican leaders are not providing one single penny of 
the $400,000 it will cost to do this.
  Madam Speaker, I served in the Congress when Ronald Reagan was 
President. I understand that many Republicans and Democrats want to 
honor him. Indeed, this Congress and this Nation have already done much 
to ensure President Reagan's accomplishments get the respect they 
deserve. But a $400,000 unfunded mandate hardly seems like a fitting 
tribute to President Reagan. After all, he made a career of campaigning 
on behalf of local control.
  In my own district, we would not take kindly to the Federal 
Government forcing us to spend $400,000 in local funds that might 
otherwise have been already budgeted for health care or schools or 
other local priorities. I understand why this local community would 
resist spending $400,000 on a symbolic name change while far too many 
children in the District of Columbia go without food at the end of the 
month.
  Madam Speaker, if the Republican leadership and Grover Norquist 
believe new Metro signs and maps are such an important priority, then 
they should provide the money to pay for them. It is just plain wrong 
to force local governments to spend this money on maps for tourists 
instead of meals for children. Mr. Norquist and other Republican 
leaders do President Reagan no favor by imposing this unfunded mandate 
in his name.
  Madam Speaker, I believe the House should be allowed to consider and 
vote on the issue of the safety of our Nation's highways. These are the 
same roads school buses travel and people use to get to and from work.

                              {time}  1330

  Their safety should be paramount.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule so we may go 
back to the Committee on Rules and find a better way to address this 
important issue.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the Chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. It is a good rule, it 
is a fair rule, and it needs to be adopted. At the outset, I want to 
advise the Members that we have worked closely and cooperatively with 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to resolve areas of 
disagreement on the bill.
  The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and this gentleman have been 
able to work out almost everything to our mutual satisfaction. We do 
not agree with their position on every matter, but we do not begrudge 
their right to assert their concerns and jurisdiction.
  Under this rule, the authorizing committee will in a number of 
instances exercise its prerogatives under the rules of the House to 
remove provisions that our committee believes are important and 
necessary, but which fall within their jurisdiction. The rule preserves 
their right to do that. In a number of other cases, the authorizing 
committee has agreed not to object to provisions included by our 
committee, which, again, we believe are necessary to carry out the 
programs in the bill.
  It is vitally important, Madam Speaker, that we adopt the rule and 
proceed to consider the Transportation appropriations bill. The bill 
contains $59 billion for highways, airport grants and other aviation 
programs, highway safety activities, pipeline safety programs, many 
other items that are critical to every State and to individual Members 
of the House and, of course, our people.
  We are within our funding allocation and the budget resolution. The 
bill is balanced. It is bipartisan and deserves the support of every 
Member of this body.
  Let me briefly discuss the issue of Mexican trucks and NAFTA. As my 
colleagues know, the President says that we will be opening our border 
pursuant to NAFTA in January of next year.
  This administration has a plan to ensure the safety of Mexican 
carriers that transport goods beyond the commercial zones and into the 
interior of the United States. The administration has put money behind 
that plan in its budget request. We fund that plan to the penny and 
then some. In fact, we provide increases above the President's request 
for the inspection of Mexican carriers at the border. The 
administration requested $88.2 million above current-year spending. We 
include $100.2 above the current year, an 800 percent increase.
  This money will pay for border inspection facilities and more 
inspectors. It pays for a common-sense plan that the House needs to 
support. In addition, our committee has included language in the 
committee report directing the Department of Transportation to 
implement a strong safety oversight program that ensures the 
operational safety of Mexican motor carriers who seek permission to 
operate in the U.S.
  Madam Speaker, together these provisions ensure compliance with U.S. 
safety laws and regulations, while it allows free trade to go forward. 
It is the responsible approach, and it complies with NAFTA.
  Madam Speaker, I have some serious reservations that the proposal 
from the other side would, in fact, violate NAFTA, subjecting the 
United States to severe fines.
  Madam Speaker, this is a good rule. It is a good bill, and I would 
hope that Members would support both today.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I simply want to rise to express my 
opposition to this rule because of its failure to include the right of 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) to offer his amendment on truck 
safety.
  Very simply, what his amendment seeks to do is to require the 
establishment of procedures to guarantee that Mexican trucks will be 
safe before they are allowed to travel all over the

[[Page H3546]]

United States. It just seems to me that we ought to understand that 
right now Mexican motor carriers operate with virtually no safety 
oversight to date.
  There are no motor carrier hours of service regulations in Mexico. 
There is no way at this point to check the driving records, the driving 
history of Mexican motor carrier drivers. The out-of-service record for 
those trucks in the areas where they have been checked near the border 
is astronomical. Those trucks should not be on the road without severe 
safety precautions.
  It is asserted that somehow the Sabo amendment would be a violation 
of NAFTA. That is nonsense. NAFTA is a trade pact. It is not a suicide 
pact.
  We are not required to put the safety of our motorists at risk in 
order to satisfy some international bureaucracy. We have already had a 
ruling that makes quite clear that the United States has the authority, 
whatever authority we need to exercise, in order to protect the safety 
of American travelers.
  I find it ironic that this House will spend a lot of time on this 
Mickey Mouse amendment to require the renaming of a train station in 
the District of Columbia area and yet will not take the time to fully 
the debate the issue raised by the gentleman from Minnesota. I think 
that represents a warped set of priorities.
  I also find it ironic that the Republican majority has said through 
legislation that when the question of worker safety is at stake, as was 
the case with the ergonomics regulations that the Labor Department 
wanted to put into effect some time ago, I find it ironic that at this 
point the Republican majority of this House said, ``Oh, no, the 
regulations must wait. We are not going to worry about safety.''
  Yet at this point, when we are asking them again to take into account 
the safety considerations for American drivers, they are saying, ``Damn 
the truck safety consequences, full speed ahead!'' if I can plagiarize 
from Admiral Farragut.
  It just seems to me that this House ought to come back to a rule of 
common sense. Just because the committee did not adopt the amendment in 
full committee is no reason this House should not have the opportunity 
to take whatever action is within our reach to assure the safety of 
American drivers on our highways.
  Madam Speaker, I think the bill itself is basically a good bill, and 
I intend to support it, but I think it is egregiously erroneous for the 
House not to allow a debate on the Sabo amendment, and that is why I 
would vote against the rule and urge that other Members do likewise.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Speaker, first, I rise in support of the rule. I 
share the concern that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
raising about Mexican trucks. This is the wrong place and the wrong way 
to address it, in an appropriations bill. I think there is a lot of 
concern over the Mexican truck issue, and we need to find a way to 
resolve that. This is not the place.
  I rise in support of the underlying bill, H.R. 2299, making 
transportation appropriations for fiscal year 2002. As the chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget, I want to report to my colleagues that 
this bill is consistent with the budget resolution, and it complies 
with the applicable sections under the Congressional Budget Act.
  H.R. 2299 provides $14.9 billion for the Department of Transportation 
and several transportation-related agencies. The bill includes $307 
billion in rescission of previously enacted budget authority.
  The bill is within the 302(a) allocations of the Committee on 
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Transportation and, therefore, complies 
with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits the 
consideration of appropriation measures that exceed the appropriate 
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
  Madam Speaker, I would observe that, based on the congressional 
scoring that we have before us, the bill would exceed the statutory 
caps on highways and mass transit. Under the Budget Enforcement Act, 
any bill that breaches its caps triggers an across-the-board sequester 
in programs under that cap, but I further understand that the Committee 
on Appropriations believes and will work to ensure that this bill will 
come in under the caps when it is scored by OMB. It is OMB scoring that 
is used to enforce the caps and trigger any sequester.
  Madam Speaker, I urge that the conference committee and the chairman 
consider this concern and ensure that the final bill is consistent with 
both the budget resolution and the highway and mass transit caps.
  Madam Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and 
support not only the rule, but the underlying bill of H.R. 2299
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
for yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, first, let me say that this is a good bill, and I will 
have more to say about that later. I commend the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for producing a good bill. At the end of the day, 
it is a bill that deserves broad bipartisan support and should be 
passed by an overwhelming margin.
  Madam Speaker, however, I cannot support this rule. The reason is 
that we have a problem, in my judgment, a serious problem, with the 
advent of Mexican trucks having access to the United States outside of 
the 20-mile commercial zone starting January 1.
  This bill did not create the problem, it has been created for us, and 
if there is one place we can begin to deal with the remedy, that place 
is in this bill.
  The amendment that I had offered, which would require preinspection 
of carrier applicants in Mexico before they receive conditional 
certification, would add to the safety potential that we have in this 
country, to go along with the additional inspectors. None of us can 
guarantee perfect safety, but those working together would give us some 
greater hope that we will have safe trucks operating in this country.
  Madam Speaker, no one disputes the fact that Mexico-domiciled motor 
carriers operate with virtually no safety oversight today. There are no 
motor carrier hours of service regulations in Mexico. Even though the 
Mexican Government is now implementing a driver record database, there 
is currently no way to check the driving history of Mexico motor 
carrier drivers. In addition, Mexico will not finalize its roadside 
inspection program until October 2001.
  Let me add that while we are focusing on inspection and out-of-
service rates for trucks, equipment is important, but the driving 
capability of the driver is the most important. A greater proportion of 
accidents involving big trucks are driver-related rather than 
equipment-related.
  I might add that this committee and this Congress has been seriously 
involved in the last several years of trying to improve the truck 
safety of American trucks, and then we look at what the history is of 
Mexican trucks coming into the commercial zones today. Let me simply 
say that for trucks coming into Mexico and Arizona, we find that 40 
percent of the Mexican-domiciled trucks today are put out of service.
  I urge a no vote on this rule so we can quickly get a new rule which 
makes my amendment in order.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time, and I thank my colleague from Minnesota for 
raising this issue.
  The Sabo-Ney amendment, bipartisan amendment, is in conformity with 
the February 6 ruling of the NAFTA arbitration panel on cross-border 
trucking services. The panel found that ``inadequacies of the Mexican 
regulatory system provide an insufficient legal basis'' to maintain a 
blanket moratorium on cross-border trucking. But it made it very clear 
that the United States could treat applications from Mexican trucking 
firms in a manner different from U.S. firms as long as they are 
reviewed on a case-by-case basis. That is what this issue is about.

[[Page H3547]]

  We do not inspect all these trucks coming in from Mexico. Less than 1 
percent of all northbound crossings at the Mexican border were subject 
to inspection last year. One-third of the Mexican-domiciled trucks were 
found unsafe, so unsafe inspectors removed the trucks or removed the 
drivers from service, a 50 percent higher out-of-service ratio than we 
have in the United States. Obvious reason, there are no permanent truck 
inspection facilities at 25 of 27 southern border crossings that 
account for 3\1/2\ million northbound trucks every year.
  There is no systematic method in place to verify registration on 
Mexican-domiciled trucks. The inspector general of our DOT found 254 
Mexican trucks operating illegally beyond the commercial zones in 24 
States. Those trucks are in a position to kill our constituents. Five 
thousand people a year die in truck-car accidents. There are going to 
be half as many more deaths if we allow these Mexican trucks to come 
unsafely into the United States.
  They have a woefully inadequate safety regime in Mexico, no systemic 
safety rating process, no truck weight enforcement process, no roadside 
domestic inspection program, no hours of service regulations in Mexico, 
no credible enforcement of drug and alcohol testing. We ought to defeat 
the rule, allow the Sabo amendment to be offered.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski).
  Mr. BORSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I 
believe it is very, very important for this House to be able to vote on 
the Sabo amendment.
  Madam Speaker, just last month, along with the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Chairman Petri) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), we paid a 
visit to some of the truck inspection facilities along the Mexican 
border.
  At Otay Mesa in California, we saw an inspection system that works 
and works pretty well and hopefully could serve as a model for the rest 
of our country.
  In California, they perform a comprehensive level one inspection on 
all trucks crossing the border at least once every 90 days and issue a 
certificate. If a truck does not have a certificate, it is pulled over 
and inspected.
  The out-of-service rate in California is very similar to our 
experience in the rest of the United States. Around 24 percent of 
trucks are taken out of service, way too high in the United States, but 
something we can continue to work on.
  The situation in Texas was an absolute nightmare. There is no 
inspection in Texas. At Laredo, we visited it on a Sunday, a slow day. 
Major Clanton of the Texas Rangers or Texas Department of Public 
Service told us a truck that is not inspected will be neglected. On 
that day Major Clanton told us he pulled five or seven or eight trucks 
over to inspect, and five of them were taken out of service. We asked 
if there were serious concerns. The answer was, yes, extremely serious, 
things like brakes that are not working.
  Madam Speaker, the situation in Texas is very serious. We should not 
allow trucks to come into the United States unless they are safe, 
unless they are inspected.
  We asked the people in Texas how soon they could put inspection 
stations up at the border. They told us it would take at least 18 
months.
  So I would strongly urge that we defeat this rule, we allow the Sabo 
amendment to be in order so that we can protect the safety of the 
traveling public in the United States. Whether one is for NAFTA or 
against NAFTA, we can all be for public safety on the highways.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bonilla), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to stop 
attacking Mexico. I cannot quite understand what the motivation is. If 
we look at the issue, we are talking about trucks coming into our 
Nation that would be held at the same standards that American trucks 
would be held by. There is absolutely no discussion here about trying 
to put the same restrictions on Canadian trucks, for example. This 
simply seems to be an effort to try to discriminate and target Mexican 
trucks.
  Again, let me emphasize that, in the State of Texas, like in my area 
that I represent spans 800 miles of the Texas-Mexico border. We want 
the trucks. We are prepared to have them come in and bring their cargo 
through in a safe manner, complying with American law.
  Let me also tell my colleagues what free trade has meant to some of 
these border communities that used to have unemployment rates at 40 to 
45 percent. Free trade has dropped the unemployment in border 
communities drastically. In some areas, like in Laredo, Texas, it has 
now caused it to be the second fastest growing community in America. It 
is a boom area, and we enjoy the fruits of free trade.
  Allowing these trucks to come in would help those folks as well. So 
to try to talk about offering an amendment to stop these trucks from 
coming in not only discriminates against Mexico, but it discriminates 
against a lot of minority communities along the border that want these 
trucks to come through because it has improved the quality of life. 
Trade has improved the quality of life. This is part of free trade that 
would improve it even more.
  So leave us alone. Let the border communities, the high Hispanic 
populations along the Texas-Mexico border, benefit from free trade. 
Stop discriminating against us and stop discriminating against Mexico.
  Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, the gentleman represents an area of Texas 
I think is the largest border area of any Member of Congress.
  Mr. BONILLA. The gentleman is correct, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. ROGERS. So all of the gentleman's constituents live on the 
border; is that correct, Madam Speaker?
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, the vast majority of my constituents, 
although I have areas that are also several hundred miles from the 
border.
  Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
knowing what the administration, the Department of Transportation is 
doing even as we speak. That is, DOT is designing a plan for the safety 
of the trucks coming up from Mexico, and knowing generally what the 
plan is, does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) have concerns for 
the safety of his constituents through which these trucks would pass to 
the rest of the U.S.?
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, not any more than I 
would have a concern about an American truck coming through.
  Let me also just add, if I could, to the gentleman from Kentucky, I 
would challenge any Member here who continues to pursue this action 
against Mexico, next time they speak about this issue, and the 
television camera is on them, I challenge them to look that camera in 
the eye and tell us that they are not discriminating against Mexico and 
border area residents.
  Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman further yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, is the gentleman aware that the Department 
of Transportation, in fact the Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 
currently is conducting a rulemaking to lay out the specific rules 
about the topic of which we are talking about today--the safety of 
Mexican carriers coming into the U.S.? They are conducting a rulemaking 
procedure. Even as we speak, members of the public can register their 
fears, their complaints, their ideas, whatever they want to say to the 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and the comments are published in 
the record. If that record reveals that many, many, many people are 
concerned about safety, the government is required to change the rule 
that they adopting. Is the gentleman aware of that rulemaking?
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am aware of that. I 
am aware of that, because I know all of us are concerned about having 
the highest standards complied with by anyone who drives trucks in our 
country.

[[Page H3548]]

  Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, is the 
gentleman aware of any Members who have spoken here today that have 
registered a complaint with the Motor Carrier Safety Administration?
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any such problems that 
have existed, not to create a premise on which to file any complaints. 
These are simply scare tactics and, as I have pointed out, targeted 
just against Mexico, nothing mentioned about Canada.
  Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman further yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, does the gentleman also realize that, if 
the rulemaking that will be adopted sometime this early fall is not 
severe enough to ensure the safety of American citizens from Mexican 
trucks, that Congress can always address the question at that time?
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, I am aware of that, and I am sure that 
that is something we would want to do in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and 
because of its refusal to allow the common-sense Sabo amendment on 
truck safety.
  This gentleman represents a border community. This gentleman 
represents an area where 30 percent of the trucks cross the border.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has filed a complaint on the 
rulemaking. I will tell my colleagues that I know of the dangers of the 
trucks to our citizens and to our driving public. I know what happens 
when uninsured drivers have accidents. I know what happens when trucks 
do not have brakes. I know what happens when tired drivers are on the 
roads in San Diego and the rest of this Nation.
  I will tell the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) who just spoke and 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) who talks about an 
administration plan, I live on the border. There is no evidence of such 
a plan. There is no national standard. I have traveled to Texas. I have 
looked at our border inspections in California. This is not 
discrimination against Mexico, Madam Speaker. This is a plea on behalf 
of the safety of our constituents who would be in danger.
  I will tell my colleagues every State is left to itself to determine 
standards of inspection. We heard that the California inspection 
station in my district at Otay Mesa has a state-of-the-art inspection 
station, and they do. But do my colleagues know how many trucks they 
inspect of the 3,000 or more that come across every day? Less than 1 
percent. They do not do anything about the insurance of the driver. 
They know nothing about the history of the driver or their safety or 
how long they have worked.
  If you go to Texas, and we were in the district of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bonilla), who just spoke, in Laredo, there is no inspection. 
In fact, the Department of Transportation of Texas and the local 
officials in Laredo have great controversy of what kind of inspection 
should go on. There will not be inspection stations in there under 
whatever plan, I assume a secret plan that the President has, to 
inspect in Texas, because they cannot come to any agreement on what 
could happen there.
  I tell my colleagues, if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) wants 
those problems in Laredo, that is fine. But let us leave them there and 
not go to the rest of the Nation where we have problems. I urge a no 
vote on this amendment. I urge we protect U.S. citizens and the driving 
public throughout America.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas 
for yielding me this time.
  President Bush's decision to open the border to Mexican trucks is 
wrong. A report released on May 8th from the Department of 
Transportation's inspector general showed the U.S. Border Patrol can 
only inspect 1 percent, 46,000 of the 4.5 million trucks that were 
crossing the border.
  Three years ago, at my expense, I went to Laredo, Nuevo Laredo. I 
went to the border and watched the truck inspections. One person was 
inspecting trucks that day. Two thousand five hundred trucks were going 
through the border at Laredo; one inspector working for Governor George 
W. Bush and the Department of Public Safety in Texas.
  I asked him how many trucks he inspected a day. He said 10 to 12. I 
said, how many trucks do you take out of service each day? He said, 
somewhere between about 9 to 11.
  He had told us, complained that the State of Texas had not fixed the 
scales which had been broken for 3 months, that the State of Texas and 
the Government of the United States simply were not very interested in 
truck safety.
  Whether these trucks, these 2,500 a day that were going from Nuevo 
Laredo to Laredo, Texas, the 4.5 million trucks a year, whether they 
have faulty brakes or tire failures or loads that exceed weight limits, 
Mexican trucks fail to meet American standards.
  Mexican trucks on average are 10 years older than U.S. trucks. A 
truck driver in the United States cannot get a license until 21. In 
Mexico, the age is 18. Mexico does not have a national commercial truck 
driver's license information system to detect driving violations. U.S. 
drivers can drive only 10 hours per shift, must keep a log of their 
hours worked, must pass a knowledge and skills test, and must have 
regular medical examinations.

                              {time}  1400

  In Mexico there are none of those requirements.
  Madam Speaker, President Bush is wrong on truck safety. He is wrong 
to open the border to unsafe trucks. The Republican leadership is wrong 
on this issue. Vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman wishes to yield back, 
we will close this and move to the vote.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, we had several other requests for time. The 
Members are not present on the floor. I would ask the gentleman whether 
he has any additional speakers.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. No, I do not. It is obvious I have been reserving the 
balance of my time to close the debate on our side when the gentleman 
is ready.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to urge that the rule be defeated. The rule does not make in order the 
very important amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Sabo), and the rule also did not take into consideration the objections 
raised by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to close.
  Madam Speaker, this is an open rule. It is a fair rule. It is a rule 
that allows the transportation legislation of the Committee on 
Appropriations to come before the House. There has been consideration, 
with the will of the Committee on Appropriations passing a second 
degree amendment to the Sabo amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers). That amendment passed 37 to 27, reflecting the 
will of the Committee on Appropriations in the amendment.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wilson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8(c) of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the adoption of House Resolution 178 will be followed by 
a 5-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules postponed earlier 
today.

[[Page H3549]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 205, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 191]

                               YEAS--219

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Burton
     Clement
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Kaptur
     LaTourette
     Payne
     Platts
     Putnam

                              {time}  1426

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mrs. CAPPS, and 
Messrs. BECERRA, INSLEE and JONES of Ohio changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HOUGHTON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________