[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.
____________________