[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 164 (Friday, November 30, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H8734-H8740]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2299, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Pursuant to House Resolution 299, Mr.
Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2299) making
appropriations
[[Page H8735]]
for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 299, the
conference report is considered as read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
Thursday, November 29, 2001.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to present to the body an excellent
conference agreement on H.R. 2299, the Department of Transportation and
related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002.
First, let me say that we worked long, hard hours to hammer out the
agreements contained in the bill.
{time} 0915
I want to especially thank this morning the staff of the
subcommittee, both on the majority and minority side, for staying up
now two consecutive nights all night long, last night reading out the
bill, and the previous night trying to put the bill together for
consideration by this body. And they are not in a stupor, Mr. Speaker,
but they are very tired. And I think we owe them an especially big debt
of gratitude, Rich Efford and the other on the staff of the
subcommittee. On both sides of the aisle, we want to say a special
thank you to the staff for a tremendous job under extreme conditions
because of the hurry up of this process.
We had some daunting challenges, Mr. Speaker. We started the process
on this bill with veto threats hanging over both the House bill and the
other body's bill because of a controversy over the best way to ensure
the safety of trucking, the trucking industry, that we enjoy today
without violating the NAFTA treaty.
Also, because of a Type 302-B conference allocation, we had to cut
many of the funding items in the conference far below the Senate level.
However, with the continued fine cooperation of my colleague and
friends from across the aisle, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo),
the help especially of Senators Murray and Shelby, and the willingness
of senior administration officials to meet us half way on the trucking
issue, we have, I believe, solved these problems in a fair manner that
we can all be proud of.
This bill forges a consensus that, frankly, some thought was
impossible a few months ago. And I had to be one of those who thought
we could not find a middle ground on the Mexican trucking issue. But
through a long process we have. This bill puts in place a much stronger
truck safety and enforcement regime at the Mexican border, requiring
on-site inspections and compliance reviews of Mexican trucking firms,
weigh-in-motion scales at some of the busier border crossings, and a
comprehensive Inspector General audit of the whole system.
After the I.G. audit is completed, the Secretary then will have to
certify that opening the border can be accomplished without causing
unacceptable safety problems on our Nation's highways. Only then will
Mexican trucks be able to drive beyond the border zone further into the
U.S.
I should also point out that we owe the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Sabo) a big debt of gratitude for his hard work in making sure that the
bill includes tough new provisions regulating hazardous materials
coming over the border. Specifically, due to his work, the bill
requires that a new agreement be placed between the U.S. and the
Mexican Governments tightening up hazardous materials transportation
and ensuring the safety of our roads before Mexican trucking firms are
permitted to bring hazardous materials beyond the border zones. That is
a great addition to this bill, and I think we all owe the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) a big debt for that particular provision.
At the same time, in all of this we were responsive to the
President's firm commitment to honor the NAFTA treaty and open the
border in 2002. The provisions of this bill will, I believe, allow the
President to open the border sometime in fiscal year 2002 and will not
violate the NAFTA treaty. The administration also believes that. It is
critical that we honor our international commitments, and this bill
does that. The administration has indicated their full support for the
compromise worked out on the Mexican trucking issue.
In its funding aspects, let me first point out that the bill is
within our allocation for budget authority and outlays. Although our
allocation was extremely tight, we were able to fund all of the major
DOT operating agencies at or near the President's budget request, while
honoring the funding guarantees in TEA-21 and AIR-21. This was not easy
to accomplish because it required us to cut out many worthy items,
especially in the transit area.
In general, the bill before you provides increases for major
infrastructure programs around the country. Let me provide just a
couple of examples. The bill includes $320 million to kick off the
Coast Guard's new deepwater program, the largest acquisition ever
attempted by the Department of Transportation. That is about $280
million above last year's level. It includes funding for Federal-aid
highways, $100 million above the level guaranteed in the authorization
bill. And it fully funds the authorization for much-needed airport
funding. These resources will go a long way to help jump-start the
transportation construction sector of our economy.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Members should know that this bill responds
to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The bill includes an
appropriation of $1.25 billion for screening activities at the Nation's
airports. I know some have questioned the aggressive timetable for
aviation security improvements we just recently established in this
body. Well, we are saying in this bill that funding will not be a
problem. This bill provides the necessary funds to take whatever steps
are necessary in the near term to accelerate this transition as much as
possible. The bill also provides $100 million for the procurement and
installation of additional bomb detection systems at the Nation's
airports, so that installation of these vital systems at our Nation's
airports can be accelerated, Mr. Speaker.
So without further elaboration, I believe that this is a great bill.
It deserves Members' support. I recommend it to every single Member.
I want to say again the appreciation we have for the hard work of our
colleagues on the subcommittee from both sides of the aisle. We have a
wonderful group of Members of this body accumulated in this
subcommittee. All of them participate. All of them have contributed to
this bill and all have contributed their dedication to the success of
the transportation bills of the country. And I want to thank each
member of the subcommittee for the great contributions they have made,
and especially, again, the staff who have devoted themselves beyond the
call of duty to this particular bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first let me compliment and congratulate the
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for his
outstanding work for bringing to the House a conference report on the
fiscal year 2002 transportation appropriations bill that we should all
be proud of and that we should pass. But I would like in particular to
compliment the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for the role
he played in making sure that we reached an agreement on the Mexican
truck issue that I think satisfied the concerns of all of us who raised
the issue and still found a solution that the President would sign.
He played an absolutely key and essential role in making that happen.
It has been a long journey, and we wondered how it would end at times.
When the House acted because of procedural limitations, we adopted an
amendment that we knew would have to later be modified. I thought the
Senate did some outstanding work in making modifications and expanding
on what should be done as it relates to motor carrier safety as we
begin to
[[Page H8736]]
have Mexican trucks come beyond the 20 mile commercial zone. The
discussions that went on for an extended period of time finally
resulted in a solution that will be signed by the President. At the
same time it represents a giant leap forward in assuring the American
public that those trucks and those drivers will be safely on our roads.
We know we can have no absolute guarantee for any of us when it comes
to our highways, but there is a process in place that, properly
administered, should assure that the quality of vehicles and the
quality of drivers on our highways are the same for those trucks and
those drivers as those that exist in our country.
So I think that was a major step forward, and the gentleman from
Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) played an essential role in making that
happen.
The bill itself makes necessary investments in our Nation's
infrastructure and the safety of all of our modes of transportation. It
is a good bill, and let me join the chairman in thanking the staff that
has worked so hard and all the Members of the committee that worked so
hard to bring this bill to us. But let me in particular thank Bev Feeto
of our majority staff, Marge Duske of my personal staff, Rich Efford,
Stephanie Gupta, Cheryl Tucker, Linda Muir, and Theresa Kohler of the
majority staff. All of them do excellent work. This is a good bill and
it deserves a big vote.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the
full committee who has been such a big help in the construction of this
bill and helping to shepherd us through the maze we have had to go
through. I want to thank the chairman as I yield him time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding
me time, and I am not going to take a lot of time on the bill because
it has been very well explained and the subcommittee has done such a
good job.
The bill does not really need a lot of speeches in its behalf. But I
rise to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the
ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for having done
a really good job in an extremely difficult situation. They have done
yeoman's service. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Rogers) mentioned
the staff, and I want to adjust a little bit more time to his comments
about the staff.
The conferees finished, we finished our work on this conference last
evening considerably later than after the House had left for the day.
We finally got the paperwork done by midnight and then the staff, after
having completed the paperwork, and we are very meticulous in making
sure that our bills are exactly the way we intend them to be; we seldom
ever have to come in and ask for a correction because of good staff
work. But they were finally able to start reading the bill, that is a
term we use, read the bill, at about 12:40 a.m. this morning. And by
5:00 this morning they had completed reading the bill. And we went to
the Committee on Rules and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers)
came in and filed the bill then, and we went to the Committee on Rules
and got the rule which has already passed.
They have done a really good job, and I wanted to take another minute
and explain why this has been such a difficult task for them and what a
good product they have produced.
The House of Representatives passed this bill on June 26. That seems
like it was almost last year. The Senate passed it on August 1,
considerably later. But we did not get the paperwork and a request to
go to conferences for 85 days after the Senate passed the bill. For 85
days this stayed out there, and it festered a little bit here and
there. The issues were brought up that had to be settled. But this
subcommittee worked through all of those issues. And so finally on
October 29 we received the papers and we went to conference on the 31.
And so today we have produced a bill that I think would enjoy
tremendous support in the House. But I took this time to not only
compliment the leadership of the subcommittee, but to say that as
chairman of the full committee, it makes my job a lot easier, and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I, as the chairman and ranking
member, it makes our jobs easier when we have a subcommittee that
produces as good a product as this. It makes our job a lot easier so we
appreciate that.
Let me take a few more seconds to say that next week we intend to
have the District of Columbia appropriations conference ready for the
House to consider and, additionally, we are planning to do the foreign
operations appropriations subcommittee also for next week. There are
several issues that are a little bit above our pay grid that still have
to be resolved, but we think we can do that and have those two on the
floor.
{time} 0930
The only two appropriations bills remaining are the Labor, Health and
Human Services and the Defense. The slowdown on the Defense, I will not
take the time to explain that, but September 11 was part of the
slowdown because we were in this building ready to markup the Defense
bill on September 11 when everybody was evacuated after the terrorist
attacks.
The subcommittee has done a good job. And I compliment them as
strongly as I can and the staff and hope that we will get a very nice
vote for this good conference report today.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Pastor), a distinguished member of our subcommittee.
(Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Sabo) for yielding me the time.
I rise in support of this conference bill and ask my colleagues to
support it. I also rise to congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for the
excellent job they have done on this conference bill.
I represent the border communities of Arizona, and we tried to
balance the safety issues as well as the commerce issues, and this
compromise that has been achieved in this bill allows us to protect the
safety of our American citizens, especially those that live on the
border. At the same time, we allow the implementation of the NAFTA
agreement and will allow that commerce to continue and probably
increase.
I also want to thank both gentlemen for recognizing the needs of
Arizona in terms of transportation infrastructure and public
transportation needs. I have to tell you that they recognized and they
funded important projects, and I want to thank them both for doing
that.
In Phoenix, which is the United States fifth largest community, they
are assisting us in continuing the development of a light transit
system, as well as a public transportation system. They funded the
infrastructure for our growing and enlarging airports and helped other
community transportation systems.
Commerce is very important to Arizona, and one of the issues is the
bridge over Hoover Dam, and that would allow the CANAMEX transportation
corridor to be developed, and they recognize that, and they also fund
it.
I also want to thank the staff for working on this bill and bringing
forth to us an excellent bill, and I ask for its support.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), another distinguished member of our
subcommittee.
(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I, too, was a member of the subcommittee
and want to thank our chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers), for his excellent leadership, coming in as a new subcommittee
chair for this bill, being fair, thorough. I also want to thank the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), our ranking member, who has always
been effective in his quiet intelligence for allowing all of us to
participate and to represent the constituents who send us here.
I represent Michigan, the border city of Detroit, one of the busiest
border crossings in our country in northern America, and it is very
important that we do what we need to do to secure
[[Page H8737]]
those borders, and I want to thank both the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for the work
that they have put in this bill to begin that process.
Since September 11 I have had an opportunity to meet on two occasions
with our Coast Guard, our INS, our Customs and our Border Patrol to
talk about the needs that they must have over the next several months
and years to actually secure those borders, and I know that I have the
support of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), as well as our
chairman of our subcommittee and our ranking member to see that that is
done.
Quite a bit of commerce comes across that Canadian border, as well as
other things, both negative and positive. This bill begins to address
much of it, and I want to thank the leadership of this committee for
allowing that.
We still have work to do on those borders. The Coast Guard, INS,
Customs and Border Patrol are still short of people. The supplemental
that is going through will help some of that, too. The world has
changed since September 11, and this transportation bill begins to
address that.
I thank the committee very much for all that it has done for the
State of Michigan and for this country to address those needs in this
bill, and, as we move forward in our next appropriation and beyond,
consider those agencies who risks their lives every day to secure our
borders and bring more attention to our northern borders here in our
country.
I would urge all my colleagues to support this bill. It is wonderful,
it is fair, it is good transportation policy.
I rise in support of the conference report, and I appreciate the
efforts of our Chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Rogers, and
the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Sabo for putting together a bill that
we can pretty much all agree on.
This bill makes some significant funding advances for providing
additional inspectors at airports and for improving airport security. I
think this must be viewed as a first step toward ensuring the safety
and security of our commercial transportation infrastructure, and I am
very pleased with our efforts in this area.
Another area of concern to all of us is funding for a key agency in
the protection of our homeland security, the Coast Guard. The Coast
Guard personnel resources assigned to protecting our nation's ports
were stretched before September 11th and are stretched even thinner
now. This bill will give the resources necessary to bring some relief
to the demands being made of our Coast Guard personnel.
I am also pleased that we have reached a compromise on the NAFTA
trucking issue. The compromise reached will go along way to ensuring
highway safety and still comply with the NAFTA accord this Congress
supported almost a decade ago. Let me say to my colleagues that this
year's bill focused much attention on the southern border. Next year, I
look forward to working with my colleagues in strengthening the
security of our transportation infrastructure along the northern
border.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is one that we can be
proud of and I thank the Speaker for granting me this time.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), one of the distinguished members of the
authorizing committee and a good friend.
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, let me first commend the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for
the exceptional job they did on this bill. I also want to commend
Senators Murray and Shelby and particularly on the issue of Mexican
trucks. This was an extremely contentious issue and one that has been
worked out to my personal great satisfaction. It was a job well done.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Petri) and myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden) traveled to the Mexican
border to see what was happening firsthand with the Mexican truck
issue.
At Otay Mesa, California, we saw a system that I think worked very
well. We saw a system where trucks were given inspection stickers that
were good for 90 days. Any vehicle that tried to get through without
that inspection was not allowed and was inspected. We then went to
Texas where we saw a much lesser successful situation, if you will.
At Otay Mesa, the experience was similar to ours in the United States
of America where about 24 percent of the trucks were taken out of
service that were inspected, a rate both much too high here and there,
at least consistent with our experience in the United States.
In Texas, we were met by Coy Clanton, who was the director of public
safety in Texas, and he told us that a truck that is not inspected will
be neglected, and what we saw in Texas were trucks that were not
inspected and were neglected, where the cars or trucks were taken out
of service, were somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 percent totally
unacceptable.
This is a good agreement in the conference report. Every truck that
wants to enter the United States of America must be inspected. If it
does not have a valid inspection sticker it will be pulled off, have a
complete level one inspection. If it does not pass, it will not get
into this country. This is a great victory for public safety, and,
again, I commend all the conferees.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), immediate past
chairman of this subcommittee and now the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary, my old subcommittee. I have
gained even more respect for this gentleman after having seen what he
had to go through on this bill for the last 6 years.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and
the staff for a really, really great job. This is a very difficult
bill, a lot of contentious issues, that really tie a lot of people up.
They really have done an amazing job. I have been watching and I just
want to congratulate the gentleman for it.
On the issue of truck safety, speaking of the Mexican trucks, I
appreciate that they literally by their actions here have saved a lot
of lives. There will be a lot of people that will never get the
telephone call saying that a loved one was killed because of a truck
coming out of Mexico because of the actions that they have done. They
will not know that they did not get that telephone call because of the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Sabo), but I want to kind of put it in the record that, because of
their efforts, they will not get that call.
I think it is now incumbent upon the administration to take the good
work that they have done and enforce it appropriately, and I know they
will hold their feet to the fire.
Again, to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), congratulations
and to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), congratulations. Also,
they have an outstanding staff, having worked with them for a number of
years. So I want to also congratulate the staff, and there really ought
not be any negative votes against this bill. I cannot see why a Member
of Congress would vote against the bill and hope everyone votes for it.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), my distinguished colleague.
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Sabo) for yielding me the time and compliment my colleague and dear
friend for his leadership on all of the issues in this appropriation
bill on transportation and to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers)
for whom I have worked with for many years on Appalachia and economic
development matters and the chairman of the full committee, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), for the excellent product that they
have brought back to the House.
I do want to observe, though, that the manager's report contains a
listing of over 100 airport projects that managers want to see funded
out of FAA discretionary funds. In the past, there have been listings
of projects for specific airports but without specific dollar amounts
and with less prescriptive
[[Page H8738]]
language than is included in this manager's report.
The law governing aviation discretionary funds requires the FAA to
establish a priority system under which decisions are made about those
projects that will receive these very limited dollars. Highest priority
goes to projects that will bring airports into compliance with safety
and with security standards, and next are projects that are subject to
letters of intent. Others are for phased projects and for preservation
of existing infrastructure.
Many of the projects listed here may be of fine quality in and of
themselves to qualify for funding under FAA established standards. But
the aviation system is not like highways. An improvement to a highway
project in Boston does not necessarily or in any direct way benefit
highway travel in California, but improvement to an airport in Boston
makes a great difference to the entire U.S. aviation system.
I want to make it clear that the language in a conference report
cannot override a priority system established under existing governing
law. A decision of the Comptroller General found that Congress cannot
require the Navy to select a particular aircraft the language in the
committee report wanted the Navy to require.
When I chaired the Subcommittee on Aviation over numerous years there
were innumerable requests for Members to include designation of their
particular airport projects, and I steadfastly refused to do that in
our authorization. We should not impose the will of the Congress in
specific ways in the aviation system, and as ranking member of the full
committee, I continued to resist such designation in the last two FAA
authorization bills.
Again, I regret that this language has been included.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), a distinguished member of our subcommittee.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Sabo) for yielding me the time.
I rise today in support of the bill and to congratulate our chairman,
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and our ranking member, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), for the leadership they have shown
in addressing the Nation's critical transportation needs.
I particularly want to express thanks to the staff for this
subcommittee which has worked so very hard and put in so many long
hours over the last couple of weeks but culminating in a fierce
collection of hours over the last 48, and that would be the majority
staff: Richard Efford, Stephanie Gupta and Cheryl Tucker and, also, of
course, our clearly overworked and undoubtedly underpaid staff member
on the minority side, Bey Pheto. They have put an enormous amount of
effort into this, and I appreciate it very much, as I know all the
members of the subcommittee do.
Despite our constrained allocation, the bill successfully makes
critical investments in highway transit, aviation and the Coast Guard.
{time} 0945
And I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for the
excellent provisions related to Mexican trucks. This will ensure the
safety of our highways, or help to ensure the safety at least of our
highways, as was so very important.
I am also pleased we were able to delete an anti-environmental rider
on global warming that was included in the original House bill. There
is now overwhelming, peer-reviewed, sound, scientific evidence that
global warming is occurring and substantially due to human influence.
The National Academy of Science has very recently reaffirmed that fact.
But one does not have to look at anecdotal evidence, just look at the
exceedingly unusual weather here in November.
I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
work in removing this rider. It is a good bill, Mr. Speaker, and I urge
all Members to support it.
Mr. Speaker, a major hallmark of the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (TEA 21), which was passed by the Congress in 1998 by
overwhelming margins, was that for the first time receipts into the
Highway Trust Fund were guaranteed to be spent for transportation
purposes. This is accomplished through the annual calculation of
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), which makes adjustments in
obligations to compensate for actual receipts into the Trust Fund
versus the estimated authorization included in TEA 21 for the fiscal
year.
While I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee has for the most
part upheld the firewalls in this Conference Report, I find the
redistribution of RABA funds to be outrageous. Under TEA 21, RABA funds
are to be distributed proportionately to the states through formula
apportionments and also to allocated programs. This Conference Report
is a radical departure from that and is a cause for great concern. It
is something I cannot support.
The Conference Report was available for only a couple hours before
the House voted on it. However, a quick review indicates that nearly $1
billion of the $4.5 billion of 2002 RABA funds has been redistributed
contrary to TEA 21. Specific TEA 21 programs, which normally are
discretionary programs, have been increased well beyond what their
proportionate share of RABA funds would have been if TEA 21 had been
followed in this conference report. Of course, all these funds have
been earmarked by the appropriators.
According to the Federal Highway Administration, to pay for these
earmarks, about $500 million will be lost for allocated programs and
$500 million will be lost from state apportionments. That means states
lose more than 11 percent of RABA funds from the regular formula
program.
Every Member who worked to get a high priority project in TEA 21
should take note. Under TEA 21, high priority projects under section
1602 should be included in RABA distributions. But, the appropriators
have chosen to zero out RABA funding for TEA 21 high priority projects.
This means that every Member with a TEA 21 project will experience a
13% cut in funds. If RABA funds had been distributed according to TEA
21, Members' high priority projects would have been increased by $236.7
million in FY 2002. Instead, they will receive no RABA funds.
A look at what the committee has done to particular programs
illustrates dramatically what has happened. The Transportation and
Community and System Preservation Pilot Program, which is authorized at
$25 million for FY 2002 in TEA 21, should have received $3.3 million in
RABA Funds. But, incredibly, the appropriators have given it an amazing
$250.8 million in RABA funds. Could it be because this program does not
require a State or local match and can be used for practically
anything? A perfect pot of money to earmark. Again, a $25 million
program has been increased to $275.8 million for FY2002.
Under TEA 21, the Borders and Corridors program is authorized at $140
million for the fiscal year. It should have received $18.6 million in
RABA funds, but instead it will receive more than $352 million in RABA
funds.
Under TEA 21, the Interstate Maintenance Discretionary program is
authorized at $100 million for FY2002 and should have received $13.3
million in RABA. But under the conference report, the program will
receive $76 million in RABA funds. The Bridge Discretionary program,
authorized at $100 million per year, should receive $13.3 million in
RABA funds. But, it will receive more than $62 million in RABA funds.
Of course, at this point the term ``discretionary program'' is a
complete misnomer as the Secretary has absolutely no discretion since
all the funds (both the base amount and RABA) are earmarked.
Again, all of these funds, which should be distributed to the states
and allocated programs, have been earmarked for winners and losers.
I have included two charts prepared by the Federal Highway
Administration at the U.S. Department of Transportation which
illustrate the impact of this misuse of RABA funds. One chart indicates
the amount of RABA funds each allocated program would have received in
FY 2002 under TEA 21 and what they will actually receive under this
conference report. The other indicates what the impact will be on
individual states and the amount of formula funds lost.
Mr. Speaker, this is just wrong. RABA was not created to be a slush
fund for the appropriators. For the committee to take nearly $1 billion
of these funds to earmark for projects they deem desirable--on top of
the fact that they had already earmarked all pre-RABA discretionary
funds--should not happen. This should not be a precedent for future
years. And we will continue to review the Conference Report for other
offensive provisions.
With conference reports, our options admittedly are limited. However,
I cannot stand by and let these egregious acts go by without at least
commenting and acknowledging just what has gone on in this report.
[[Page H8739]]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION--RABA DISTRIBUTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid Highway Programs TEA-21 Conference Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apportioned Programs............................... 3,968,764,800 3,519,429,770 (449,335,030)
============================================================
Allocated Programs:
Federal Lands Highways Program:
Indian Reservation Roads................... 36,050,486 35,565,651 (484,835)
Public Lands Highways...................... 32,249,049 31,815,091 (433,958)
Park Roads and Parkways.................... 21,631,440 21,339,391 (292,049)
Refuge Roads............................... 2,624,255 2,586,593 (37,662)
National Corridor Planning & Devel. & Coord. 18,633,932 352,556,000 333,922,068
Border Infrastructure Pgm.....................
Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal 5,059,012 25,579,000 20,519,988
Facilities....................................
National Scenic Byways Program................. 3,393,730 0 (3,393,730)
Value Pricing Pilot Program.................... 1,464,300 0 (1,464,300)
High Priority Projects Program................. 236,671,037 0 (236,671,037)
Highway Use Tax Evasion Projects............... 666,113 0 (666,113)
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Highway Program.... 14,642,998 0 (14,642,998)
Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge................. 29,946,366 29,542.304 (404,062)
Miscellaneous Studies, Reports, & Projects..... 2,503,665 0 (2,503,665)
Magnetic Levitation Transp. Tech. Deployment 0 0 (0)
Program.......................................
Transportation and Community and System 3,324,822 250,792,600 247,467,778
Preservation Pilot Program....................
Safety Incentive Grants for Use of Seat Belts.. 14,907,146 0 (14,907,146)
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 15,969,481 0 (15,969,481)
Innovation....................................
Surface Transportation Research................ 13,442,846 0 (13,442,846)
Technology Deployment Program.................. 5,989,273 0 (5,989,273)
Training and Education......................... 2,526,635 0 (2,526,635)
Bureau of Transportation Statistics............ 4,128,751 0 (4,128,751)
ITS Standards, Research, Operational Tests, and 13,976,885 0 (13,976,885)
Development...................................
ITS Deployment................................. 15,969,481 0 (15,969,481)
University Transportation Research............. 3,525,804 0 (3,525,804)
Emergency Relief Program....................... 13,310,772 0 (13,310,772)
Interstate Maintenance Discretionary........... 13,310,772 76,025,000 62,714,228
Territorial Highways........................... 4,846,545 0 (4,846,545)
Alaska Highway................................. 2,503,665 0 (2,503,665)
Operation Lifesaver............................ 68,908 0 (68,908)
High Speed Rail................................ 700,567 0 (700,567)
DBE & Supportive Services...................... 2,664,451 0 (2,664,451)
Bridge Discretionary........................... 13,310,772 62,450,000 49,139,228
Study of CMAQ Program Effectiveness............ 0 0 0
Long-term Pavement............................. 0 10,000,000 10,000,000
New Freedom Initiative......................... 0 0 0
State Border Infrastructure.................... 0 56,300,000 56,300,000
Motor Carrier Safety Grants.................... 24,221,241 23,896,000 (325,241)
Public Lands Discretionary..................... 0 45,122,600 45,122,600
------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Allocated Programs................. 574,235,200 1,023,570,230 449,335,030
============================================================
Total........................................ 4,543,000,000 4,543,000,000 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION--DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET
AUTHORITY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
States TEA-21 Conference Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................................................... 78,660,918 69,755,098 (8,905,820)
Alaska....................................................... 47,506,115 42,127,574 (5,378,541)
Arizona...................................................... 71,794,955 63,666,485 (8,128,470)
Arkansas..................................................... 50,998,628 45,224,673 (5,773,955)
California................................................... 357,228,521 316,748,679 (40,479,842)
Colorado..................................................... 51,633,630 45,787,781 (5,845,849)
Connecticut.................................................. 59,372,721 52,650,669 (6,722,052)
Delaware..................................................... 18,097,567 16,048,600 (2,048,967)
Dist. of Col................................................. 15,517,870 13,760,970 (1,756,900)
Florida...................................................... 187,841,638 166,574,611 (21,267,027)
Georgia...................................................... 141,803,966 125,749,226 (16,054,740)
Hawaii....................................................... 20,042,262 17,773,120 (2,269,142)
Idaho........................................................ 28,813,232 25,551,060 (3,262,172)
Illinois..................................................... 129,699,234 115,014,965 (14,684,269)
Indiana...................................................... 91,837,217 81,439,605 (10,397,612)
Iowa......................................................... 46,752,049 41,458,883 (5,293,166)
Kansas....................................................... 45,442,357 40,297,471 (5,144,886)
Kentucky..................................................... 68,342,130 60,604,581 (7,737,549)
Louisiana.................................................... 61,436,479 54,480,773 (6,955,706)
Maine........................................................ 20,796,328 18,441,812 (2,354,516)
Maryland..................................................... 64,532,116 57,225,928 (7,306,188)
Massachusetts................................................ 71,715,580 63,596,096 (8,119,484)
Michigan..................................................... 126,563,909 112,234,615 (14,329,294)
Minnesota.................................................... 57,110,525 50,644,594 (6,465,931)
Mississippi.................................................. 50,720,814 44,978,312 (5,742,502)
Missouri..................................................... 90,924,402 80,630,136 (10,294,266)
Montana...................................................... 40,640,152 36,038,961 (4,601,191)
Nebraska..................................................... 31,472,305 27,944,272 (3,528,033)
Nevada....................................................... 28,932,295 25,656,643 (3,275,652)
New Hampshire................................................ 19,605,698 17,385,983 (2,219,715)
New Jersey................................................... 100,687,563 89,287,933 (11,399,630)
New Mexico................................................... 38,735,144 34,349,635 (4,385,509)
New York..................................................... 197,128,548 174,810,077 (22,318,471)
North Carolina............................................... 111,046,039 98,473,642 (12,572,394)
North Dakota................................................. 26,630,412 23,615,374 (3,015,038)
Ohio......................................................... 136,327,071 120,892,413 (15,434,658)
Oklahoma..................................................... 60,722,101 53,847,275 (6,874,826)
Oregon....................................................... 46,434,548 41,177,328 (5,257,220)
Pennsylvania................................................. 186,849,447 165,694,754 (21,154,693)
Rhode Island................................................. 24,050,715 21,327,744 (2,722,971)
South Carolina............................................... 67,429,314 59,795,112 (7,634,202)
South Dakota................................................. 27,979,792 24,811,980 (3,167,812)
Tennessee.................................................... 89,614,709 79,468,724 (10,145,985)
Texas........................................................ 310,674,910 275,500,962 (35,173,948)
Utah......................................................... 30,202,300 26,782,861 (3,419,439)
Vermont...................................................... 18,375,381 16,294,960 (2,080,421)
Virginia..................................................... 103,703,824 91,962,700 (11,741,124)
Washington................................................... 68,461,193 60,710,164 (7,751,029)
West Virginia................................................ 41,711,718 36,989,207 (4,722,511)
Wisconsin.................................................... 77,986,228 69,156,795 (8,829,433)
Wyoming...................................................... 28,178,230 24,987,951 (3,190,279)
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 3,968,764,800 3,519,429,770 \1\ (449,335,03
0)
Allocated Programs........................................... 574,235,200 1,023,570,230 449,335,030
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 4,543,000,000 4,543,000,000 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Represent -11.38 percent.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the work of the
Appropriations Committee in ensuring the safety of our highways,
particularly the Conference Report's provisions to ensure that we have
adequate safety standards with regard to Mexican carriers operating in
the United States beyond the border commercial zones.
The requirements are quite simple--we require that Mexican carriers
operating in the United States, including both their drivers and
trucks, meet U.S. safety standards before they are given authority to
operate throughout the country.
All carriers and vehicles are inspected and, until a carrier has been
operating in the U.S. for three consecutive years, we require the
California system of mandated CVSA inspections every 90 days. We ensure
that the Mexican carrier has proof of insurance. We confirm that the
drivers have valid Commercial Driver's Licenses.
We ensure that Federal and State inspectors are actually in place at
the border crossings to inspect trucks. We ensure that the border
facilities have the capacity to actually inspect trucks and have scales
to actually weigh vehicles and enforce U.S. truck size and weight laws.
We require the Department of Transportation Inspector General to do a
comprehensive review of each of these requirements and that the
Secretary of Transportation certify, in a manner addressing the IG's
findings, that the opening of the border does not pose an unacceptable
safety risk to the American public.
Although all of this would seem common sense, it has been extremely
difficult to achieve. The Administration proposed asking the Mexican
carriers to fill out a paper application, letting the trucks in, and
possibly inspecting them later. Congress, with the leadership of
members of both the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the
Appropriations Committees, particularly Ranking Member Sabo and
Chairman Rogers, and Senators Murray and Shelby, have stood firm in the
face of constant assaults from the highest levels in this
Administration that these common sense requirements were ``anti-
Hispanic'' and ``discriminatory''.
Today, the Administration embraces and welcomes the Conference Report
with its very strong provisions requiring substantially improved safety
for Mexican trucks operating in the United States. In what I would
modestly call an abrupt reversal of the Administration's ad hominem
attacks of our colleagues, the Administration has abandoned its
unfounded and misguided position on this important truck safety issue.
The Conference Report adopts the necessary public policy to ensure that
safety is the highest priority for Mexican trucks operating on American
roadways.
Given that highway fatalities are the leading cause of death for
persons in the United States of every age from 6 to 33 years old, the
American people thank the Gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Sabo, the
Gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Rogers, and other House and Senate
colleagues who stood firm in conference to save more of the Nation's
children from unneeded deaths on our highways.
[[Page H8740]]
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report
and would like to congratulate the Chairman on resolving some difficult
issues. One issue in particular is extremely important to me and the
nation--the matter of allowing Mexican trucks into the United States as
required by law.
Again, this year, there was an attempt to prohibit Mexican trucks
from operating beyond the border commercial zone. I have said all along
that this is really an issue about certain protectionist interests
trying to block Mexican trucks from the United States highways under
the guise of truck safety.
We all want to ensure that trucks traveling within the United States
are safe. I believe, however, the most important aspect of truck safety
is the observation of the driver and the inspection of the truck at the
border and along the highway. This can be done while ensuring the
security of our border and without establishing unattainable
requirements with the sole purpose of denying the entry of Mexican
trucks.
Mexican trucks that can operate in the United States, in compliance
with U.S. laws and safety regulations, should be allowed in--just like
Canadian trucks. We must treat our neighbors to the south, Mexico, the
same as we treat our neighbors to the north, Canada.
Whether you agree with NAFTA or not, it is the law of the land and it
is an international agreement that we must uphold. For too long the
protectionist interests have thwarted efforts to implement the law of
the land and to comply with our international agreements. How can we be
a global leader by reneging on our agreements? We can't and we won't.
The intent of the opponents of Mexican trucks entering the U.S. has
been very clear all along. Let's face it, there are interest groups in
the United States that do not want those trucks here. They are joined
by interest groups in Mexico.
It is time to build bridges to Mexico--bridges that allow trucks from
the U.S. and Mexico to pass each other, not barriers that block the
movement of ideas and goods.
Although I do not think that this final compromise is perfect, I am a
realist and am pleased that this conference report will allow Mexican
trucks to enter all areas in the United States. We have made a step
forward today toward treating our Mexican friends with the respect they
deserve.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous
question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the
conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 371,
nays 11, not voting 51, as follows:
[Roll No. 465]
YEAS--371
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, George
Miller, Jeff
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--11
Barcia
Filner
Flake
Hefley
McInnis
Paul
Petri
Royce
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Tancredo
NOT VOTING--51
Bachus
Becerra
Berman
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boucher
Boyd
Calvert
Carson (IN)
Conyers
Cooksey
Cubin
Cummings
DeFazio
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dooley
Dreier
Fattah
Ford
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gephardt
Holden
Jones (NC)
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
LaTourette
Lipinski
Lowey
McDermott
Meehan
Miller, Gary
Myrick
Neal
Owens
Portman
Quinn
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Sanchez
Smith (TX)
Sununu
Taylor (NC)
Vitter
Waters
Waxman
Wilson
{time} 1016
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 460, had I been present,
I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________