[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21316-21327]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4475, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 612, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4475) making appropriations for 
the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 612, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 5, 2000, at page H8922.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present today the conference 
report on the Department of Transportation and related agencies. In 
total, the bill provides $17.8 billion in discretionary budget 
authority for critical operations of the Department of Transportation, 
an increase of $3.5 billion over fiscal year 2000. Much of the increase 
over last year's level is attributed to mandated increases in the 
Federal Aviation Administration as a result of the enactment of AIR21. 
In addition, the increase over last year is a result of additional 
operational requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard.
  Allow me to mention a couple of highlights:
  $4.5 billion for the Coast Guard, of which $565 million is for drug 
interdiction;
  $12 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration, a 25 percent 
increase over last year, consistent with the requirements of AIR21, of 
which $3.2 billion is for airport improvement programs;
  $30 billion for the federal-aid highways program, an increase of 
almost $2 billion over last year and consistent with TEA21;
  $720 million for the emergency relief highway program to fund the 
backlog of overdue bills to restore highways damaged in previous 
natural disasters;
  $6.3 billion for transit program spending, an increase of $486 
million;
  $279 million for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 
more than double last year, to improve truck safety on our Nation's 
roads;
  $404 million for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
an increase of nearly 10 percent, again safety;
  $725 million for the Federal Railroad Administration, of which $521 
million is for Amtrak;
  $47 million for pipeline safety, which is an increase of over 25 
percent.
  In addition, the conference agreement contains several items that 
have been of deep interest to a lot of Members. The agreement before 
the body contains the following resolutions on rollover, hours-of-
service, and .08.
  First, on rollover, the agreement permits the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration to move forward

[[Page 21317]]

with its rollover testing proposal while the National Academy of 
Sciences studies static versus dynamic testing. Once the study is 
completed, the administration must propose any appropriate revisions to 
their testing procedures.
  Second, the agreement permits the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration to collect and analyze public comments and data on its 
proposed hours-of-service rule-making during fiscal year 2001. The 
administration may also issue a supplemental notice of proposed rule-
making once this analysis is complete. However, the agreement prohibits 
the Federal Motor Carrier Administration from taking any final action 
on the proposed rule during the year 2001. However, a lot of Members in 
this body and on the committee will be watching to see the Motor 
Carrier move ahead, because over 5,000 people a year are killed with 
regard to trucks every year and a number because of tired truck 
drivers.
  Third, the agreement modifies the Senate provision on .08 but still 
adopts a national standard for drunk driving. This new provision 
requires all States to adopt a blood alcohol level of .08 by fiscal 
year 2004. If States do not adopt this standard, they will lose a 
portion of their highway funds each year, 2 percent in the year 2004, 4 
percent in 2005, 6 percent in 2006, and 8 percent in 2007. However, the 
highway funding would be restored if a State moves to the lower 
standard by the end of the year 2007. This is basically in honor and in 
memory of the moms and dads who have lost loved ones on the road 
because by doing this, we will save four to 500 lives every year. It is 
my understanding that the Department of Transportation and the White 
House supports all three of these compromises.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement also includes a provision 
relating to the Central Artery project. This provision is the 
culmination of 6 years of review and scrutiny by this committee and the 
Department of Transportation's Inspector General on the project. The 
Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston, first estimated to cost $2.5 
billion in fiscal year 1985, is now estimated to top $13.1 billion. 
This provision contained in the conference agreement codifies a recent 
agreement with Massachusetts officials and the Federal Highway 
Administration which limits Federal financial participation in the 
project to $8.5 billion, and sets forward other terms and conditions, 
including the requirement that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
undertake a balanced statewide construction program of $400 million a 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, this provision is not meant to impugn the administration 
of, or the recent actions by, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. In 
fact, over the last recent months, the new administration has been 
forthcoming with details of the cost overruns and the cost to complete 
the project, something that previous MTA officials withheld from 
Federal officials. This provision is not to prejudice the current 
administration of the MTA but rather to ensure that the Federal Highway 
Administration and the Secretary of Transportation fulfill their 
fiduciary responsibilities to the American taxpayer.
  This conference agreement is a good bill, it is balanced, and it is a 
bill which will clearly, whether it be on the rollover, whether it be 
on the .08, whether it be on the trucks and the others and the Coast 
Guard will save lives. Seldom do we get an opportunity to vote for 
something that we clearly know will save so many lives. It deserves, 
hopefully, the body's support. It is my understanding the 
administration has no serious objections to the bill and will sign it.
  Before I close, I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Sabo), the ranking member, and the other members of the 
subcommittee for the bipartisan spirit which they have shown in helping 
us to reach an agreement on these issues. This has never been a 
partisan bill, and I am pleased that this tradition continues. The 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) have been most gracious and willing to reach compromises 
needed to move this bill forward to the President.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our full committee chairman 
who has done such an outstanding job, has always ensured that this 
subcommittee's allocation is ample to accommodate the needs of this 
subcommittee. With that spirit, I think we have a good bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to also take a moment to express my deepest 
appreciation for the fine work done by the professional staff on the 
transportation appropriations subcommittee, including John Blazey, 
Stephanie Gupta, Rich Efford, Linda Muir, Cheryl Smith and the detailee 
from the Department of Transportation, Chris Porter.
  These professionals have been instrumental in bringing together this 
important bill. They epitomize, and I speak really for staff people on 
all the committees, the countless committee staffers who work long 
hours on Capitol Hill with little or many times no recognition. Now, 
thanks to their efforts, we are sending a bill to the President that 
will improve the lives of all Americans by helping to ensure that they 
not only can go where they want to go but can get there safely.
  Stephanie Gupta worked tirelessly to include the .08 standard which 
will make certain that our sons and daughters and moms and dads can 
return home safely at night. Her perseverance on this issue, in the 
face of incredible odds, was crucial in the inclusion of .08. Again, 
500 lives.
  Additionally, Rich Efford diligently worked to guarantee that the FAA 
was giving adequate attention to the problem of runway incursions and 
other safety issues that are so important to Members on both sides of 
this issue. Rich sacrificed time with his own family for the purpose of 
making sure that air travel is safer for all of our families.
  And Linda Muir is the glue that holds it all together in the 
subcommittee office. Her organizational skills and good humor have made 
all of our jobs a lot easier.
  Cheryl Smith, from the minority side, is a true professional whose 
knowledge and experience were valuable assets to the committee's work.
  I also want to thank Geoff Gleason from my staff for the committee 
who for 2 decades, first working with Mr. Solomon and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and now in my office has been invaluable in 
our work with our colleagues in bringing this legislation up.
  Finally, I would like to thank the staff director, John Blazey, who 
oversaw the hundreds, and I would say thousands of projects in this 
bill and is one of the finest professionals on Capitol Hill. I was a 
staffer on Capitol Hill for a number of years before I had the 
opportunity to serve and watching John, I can tell you, he is a tribute 
to the staff that does such a good job on both sides of the aisle. 
Through his guidance and leadership, we have brought forth an excellent 
bill which tackles many of the concerns at the heart of transportation 
in America.

                              {time}  1030

  John Blazey knows more about these issues perhaps than anyone else 
certainly in the Congress, and maybe in the country. I know he will be 
an asset to the new Bush Administration when they take over in January 
of next year.
  As this will be my last year as chairman of this transportation 
appropriations bill, I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to the staff, 
to the Members on both sides, to the leadership and to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young) for helping.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first share the kind words of the gentleman from 
Virginia (Chairman Wolf for our staff, all the staff he mentioned, 
along with Marjorie Duske of my staff. They do outstanding work. This 
is a big and complicated bill to put together, and they do an 
outstanding job. We owe them our heartfelt thanks for the hours and 
hours of work they put in

[[Page 21318]]

producing this bill. They are competent, they are professional, they 
are fair, and my thanks go to all the staff that works on this bill.
  As the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) indicated, this is his 
last year chairing the Subcommittee on Transportation. I have had the 
opportunity over the last 4 years to serve as the ranking member on 
this subcommittee and as a member for the entire 6 years that the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has chaired the subcommittee. The 
gentleman has done an outstanding job. He is professional, he is tough, 
he is fair, and he knows what he is doing, and he works hard. I expect 
on many issues we come from differing points on view, on many issues 
that come before this Congress, but in terms of working on this 
subcommittee, I have always found the gentleman to be totally open, to 
be fair in dealing with the members of the minority. His commitment to 
the transportation system in this country, in particular to safety 
issues, the transportation system is better because of his efforts; but 
in particular I have to say that his constant attention to safety 
issues has been simply outstanding.
  I would say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), this House and 
the whole country owes the gentleman a big thank you for 6 years of an 
outstanding job.
  On the bill itself, it is a good bill. I intend to vote for it. I am 
not going to go through the same detail the Chairman did. Everything 
the gentleman said is accurate. It is a bill that will make substantial 
improvement to the transportation systems of this country.
  I agree with most everything in the bill, but let me just briefly 
mention one issue where the Chair and I disagree. He is on the winning 
side; I am on the losing side. But in the context of our Federal system 
in this country, there are certain things that the Federal Government 
has responsibilities for; there are other things that State government 
has responsibility. Clearly one area where the States have preeminence 
is creating and enforcing the traffic laws of our country.
  One of the most difficult issues for States to deal with is to 
establish the framework for dealing with drunk drivers. That involves 
their responsibility not only for creating law, but creating a court 
system to deal with it, creating the enforcement mechanisms, creating 
and spending the money for penalties and creating and spending the 
money for treatment.
  There are many components that go into a State having a rational and 
strong drunk driving law. In my judgment, it is a serious mistake for 
the Federal Government to move in on one component of a complex and 
difficult problem and say to the States, you do what we think is right, 
or we will take your highway money away, or a portion of your highway 
money away.
  It is the type of thing we do too frequently in this institution, not 
with careful thought, but simply because somebody at some point thinks 
it is a good idea. We add it as a rider to a bill, and the States have 
to comply.
  It may or may not be the right thing to do. It may vary from State to 
State. What I am certain of, however, is that setting the blood alcohol 
content level is only one small part of establishing a comprehensive 
drunk driving policy for a State; and for us to insert our judgment on 
simply this one issue, and leaving the States with all the complexity 
of other things to deal with, to me represents the arrogance at times 
that we carry in the Federal Government as it relates to State and 
local government in this country. So I strongly oppose what we are 
doing on this particular provision.
  Nonetheless, I intend to vote for the total bill, because, overall, 
it is a very good bill for transportation and safety in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss those provisions of this conference 
agreement which come under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on 
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government. These provisions are 
ones that we hope will allow the conference report, which has been over 
in the Senate and, unfortunately, has not been successful in passage, 
to allow that to be brought up again and finally passed. We believe 
that these represent the final compromises and agreements on the 
Treasury-Postal legislation, and those changes are incorporated into 
this bill.
  The provisions include more funding for the IRS, and they are items 
that the administration has indicated that they need to have in order 
to fully support the fiscal year 2001 conference report that we passed 
on September 14.
  The conference report includes an additional $348 million for the 
programs of the Department of Treasury, the Executive Office of the 
President, the National Archives, and the General Services 
Administration. When combined with the amounts that are in H.R. 4985, 
the fiscal year 2001 conference agreement, it provides $15.9 billion 
for agencies under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Treasury, 
Postal Service and General Government. That is an increase of $2.3 
billion from fiscal year 2000, or 16.4 percent.
  Included in the amount under consideration in the conference report 
pending before us now are these, among others: $37.2 million for 
Treasury-wide efforts to combat terrorism, that is an increase; an 
increase of $215 million for the IRS, including $71.8 million for 
ongoing efforts related to information systems modernization, $141 
million to support ongoing reform efforts, including staff for customer 
service and audits, and $3.1 million for money laundering; an 
additional $16.6 million for the Customs Service, to enhance both 
infrastructure and staffing along the northern border, specifically to 
counter terrorist threats in that area; an additional $30 million to 
establish and operate a metropolitan area law enforcement training 
center for the Department of Treasury, the U.S. Capitol Police, the 
Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and other Federal 
agencies; $5 million for the enhanced operation of the Office of 
National Drug Control's Technology Transfer Program; and $2.5 million 
as a transfer to the Elections Commission of the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico for objective nonpartisan citizens education for choice by voters 
on the island's future status.
  Let me just say a few words about this latter item, because it proved 
to be one of the more contentious ones. It is money that is provided 
for the Puerto Rico referendum on statehood or independence. After many 
long hours of numerous variations on a theme, we were able to secure a 
compromise with the administration on the use of these funds.
  The funds are provided with the following conditions: they are not 
available until March 31, 2001; the funds may not be used by the 
Elections Commission until 45 days after the commission submits to the 
Committees on Appropriations an expenditure plan developed jointly by 
the Popular Democratic Party, the New Progressive Party, and the Puerto 
Rico Independence Party; and the expenditure plan must be approved by 
the Committees on Appropriations prior to any funds being spent.
  I want to pay special tribute to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). This has been a difficult bill, to negotiate the 
final agreements. He and his staff have worked extremely hard with us, 
and I believe what we have achieved is good legislation.
  I want to thank the staff of my subcommittee, led by the clerk, 
Michelle Mrdeza, Jeff Ashford, Kurt Dodd, Tammy Hughes, our detailee, 
Doug Burke, Kevin Messner from any own staff, and, of course, on the 
other side, Pat Schlueter and Scott Nance, who have played key roles in 
getting this legislation to where we are today.
  I believe we have legislation that can be supported, and I hope that 
Members will support it.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman

[[Page 21319]]

from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of the full Committee on 
Appropriations and a member of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal 
Service and General Government.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote for this bill. I think in many ways 
it is a good bill. This subcommittee is run by a very classy guy. The 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has been a very good chairman for 
this subcommittee, and I think everybody in this institution knows it. 
And the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) is one of the classiest 
people who has ever been in this institution, and he has done a fine 
job as well. But I am going to vote against it, and I want to explain 
why.
  I do not need any lectures from anybody about the dangers of drunk 
driving. When I was in junior high school, I was knocked off my bicycle 
by a truck driver who had spent 4 hours in a tavern rather than doing 
what he was supposed to be doing that day. My grandfather was killed in 
an accident involving drunk driving. So I have had experience with 
drunk drivers.
  But I have also had experience with seeing people killed or maimed 
because of bad highways. I used to live on a two-lane highway, Highway 
29, in Marathon County, Wisconsin. A car was demolished simply pulling 
into our driveway because it was a badly engineered road. If that 
highway had been modernized, those people would not have been mangled. 
The problem with this bill is that it sacrifices highway safety in one 
area because of concern in another area, and I think that is wrong.
  Now, I do not know what the proper blood alcohol level ought to be, 
but I do know that if the Federal Government is going to penalize 
States by taking away highway money that they need to modernize 
dangerous roads, that then States ought to be judged on the whole array 
of their laws involving drunk driving, and not just one piece.
  I want to give some examples. This proposal originated with a Senator 
from New Jersey. I want to compare my State's record to New Jersey's.
  Virginia has often been cited as a reason why we should lower the 
blood alcohol level. But I want to point out, Wisconsin, my State, has 
a prohibition on open containers containing alcohol in motor vehicles; 
Virginia does not.
  On blood alcohol testing, Wisconsin has mandatory testing of all 
drivers after an accident; New Jersey and Virginia do not.
  Wisconsin requires mandatory early assessment of drunk drivers to 
determine alcohol dependency; and it requires treatment, if needed. 
Virginia and New Jersey do not have those requirements.
  In Wisconsin, the Department of Motor Vehicles can revoke a license 
for drunk driving; in New Jersey, only a court can revoke a license for 
drunk driving, and that takes much longer.
  In Wisconsin, if you compare the traffic fatality rate between 1975 
and 1997, Wisconsin's has improved by 61 percent; New Jersey's has 
improved by only 45 percent.
  Yet Wisconsin is being penalized. It is going to lose money because 
it does not have a .08 alcohol level, and New Jersey happens to have 
it.
  The most significant reason that Wisconsin has been able to attack 
successfully drunk driving is because we have an initiative under which 
we have a broad-based county-by-county supervision program that 
oversees drunk drivers in all aspects of their lives.

                              {time}  1045

  And that has dramatically reduced recidivism. And according to the 
National Highway Safety Administration, which authorized a study of 
this, if you have a program like we have, you are 12 times less likely 
to engage in drunk driving than you are if you do not have that kind of 
a program.
  Mr. Speaker, my objection is very simply this: All of us as human 
beings want to be judged on the basis of our entire conduct, not on the 
basis of any one little imperfection that someone happens to see. The 
same should be true of States. We should not take away precious highway 
aids from States who have done a far better job overall in dealing with 
the drunk driving issue, just because they happen to not meet 
somebody's standard of perfection on one narrow item, and that is why 
the National Governor's Association, The League of Cities, AAA, the 
Conference of State Legislatures and the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police all oppose this narrow approach to this problem.
  I am going to vote against this in protest to the way Congress has 
looked only at one narrow issue, rather than the whole range of issues 
in determining what a State's level of highway aid ought to be. I thank 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation for 
yielding the time to me, and I want to compliment him for working 
through a difficult conference and producing what I think is a really 
fine bill.
  It meets the needs of America. There are more needs that need to be 
met, but this bill goes right directly to the heart of some of the hot 
transportation problems, whether it is surface transportation or 
whether it is air transportation.
  Are there negatives? Are there things you could look for to be 
against? Of course. In any bill that comes before this House, if my 
colleagues want to find something to be against, they can find 
something to be against. There are 435 of us here. I would suspect that 
there are a lot more than 3 or 4 ideas or positions on any issue.
  But I want to specifically compliment the gentleman from Virginia 
(Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the 
ranking member of the subcommittee.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) mentioned our staff, John 
Blazey, Rich Efford, Stephie Gupta and the other members of the staff. 
These people are professionals. They know what the needs are, and they 
do the best they can to give us advice so that we can utilize the money 
available to meet those needs.
  I wanted to talk specifically for just a few minutes today about the 
United States Coast Guard. There are many who believe that the United 
States Coast Guard, because they are a uniform service, because they 
carry guns, because they enforce laws, because they go to war when 
America go goes to war or to deployment, as they did in Kosovo or as 
they did in Bosnia, they are part of the national defense system and 
get funded through the Defense appropriations bill. That is not the 
case.
  The United States Coast Guard is funded in this bill on 
transportation. I represent a county in Florida where we are very 
fortunate to have three Coast Guard stations in that county, Pinellas 
County, Florida. We have the major Coast Guard air station for the 
entire system.
  We also have a major sea station, and we have a fast boat station for 
quick access to the Gulf of Mexico to take care of close in problems 
with people that are boating or fishing or whatever and need the 
service of the Coast Guard. But the Coast Guard is called upon to be 
deployed 365 days a year; and for years, the Coast Guard had to squeeze 
their budget, really squeeze to get by, to keep their operational 
activities going.
  I would like to say to the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf), I 
thank him so much. In this bill, the gentleman has really met the needs 
of the United States Coast Guard. I believe that Commandant Loy, who is 
an outstanding leader, would say to the gentleman, as he has to me, and 
he probably has to the gentleman, that this bill really makes them feel 
comfortable.
  If my colleagues want to not vote for this bill for any reason like 
they did not get a new bridge in their districts, or did not get some 
new highway money, or did not get some aviation assets in this bill, 
think of the United States Coast Guard. They not only protect our coast 
and our harbors, but they risk their own lives in search and rescue 
missions, where they go into

[[Page 21320]]

weather situations that other people are running from to save lives and 
to save property.
  In the interdiction of drugs, the United States Coast Guard has an 
outstanding record. These are the drugs that are trying to be brought 
into the United States to seriously affect people of this great 
country, and the Coast Guard just does a great job of preventing this. 
As I said, they are deployed every day. They risk their lives every 
day.
  And I say to the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member and to the 
staff of this subcommittee, I just want to say as one Member who has a 
personal experience with the Coast Guard, my colleagues have done a 
good job for the United States Coast Guard.
  I thank my colleagues for that. I appreciate that, and I will 
enthusiastically support this bill.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver) for yielding me the time, and I rise in support of this 
conference report and particularly to discuss the component of this 
conference report which deals with the Treasury Postal bill, of which I 
have the honor of being the ranking member and working with the 
gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe).
  As the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) indicated in his 
opening remarks, this has been a difficult bill and difficult for us to 
come to agreement between ourselves and with the administration, but I 
believe we have done so.
  I believe we have done so in a very responsible fashion, which 
provides for an additional sum for the IRS, which is critical for the 
agency to meet the mandates of the Restructuring and Reform Act of 
1998. I think there is agreement on that between the gentleman from 
Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and myself in our subcommittee.
  Without this funding, a successful completion of the 2001 filing 
season would quite possibly have been at risk. Customer service would 
have been reduced and audit coverage could have continued to decline. 
In addition, this legislation continues the modernization of the IRS by 
upgrading its computer systems and business practices.
  All of that was critically important to do, and I am pleased that we 
are adding a sum sufficient to accomplish those objectives in this 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, it also includes more than $37 million in funding to 
counter terrorist threats along our northern border, enhances the 
Federal Government's joint terrorism task force, and to establish a new 
national terrorist asset tracking center, which was very important to 
the administration. They had asked for $50 million. They did not get 
all $50 million but they got about $38 million, and that was a 
significant step forward in countering terrorism.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the conference for including 
sums, and this is the transportation conference, so that we might 
complete the reconstruction of the Wilson Bridge.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this conference report, both because the 
transportation side of it is good, and I think the Treasury Postal side 
is a very good step forward.
  I want to join in the remarks of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Sabo), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation, with 
reference to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). Frank Wolf is a 
good friend of mine. He is a man of great character, intellect and deep 
integrity.
  He is a fine Member of this body, and he has, as the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) indicated, led this committee for 6 years, in a 
very, very bipartisan and substantive way. And I join the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) in his complimentary remarks about the 
leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who is such an 
important Member of the Washington metropolitan delegation.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service 
and General Government, and thank, as he did, the staff: my own staff, 
Pat Schlueter and Scott Nance who worked very hard on this bill. I 
thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) for his words about 
them, and then Michelle Mrdeza who is our staff director. She does an 
extraordinary job trying to keep all the component parts of our bill 
together.
  It has been a very difficult year for her, because, as all of my 
colleagues know, we have had some problems on the Senate side passing 
the bill. I also want to thank Jeff Ashford, Kurt Dodd, Doug Burke, and 
Tammy Hughes for their work on this bill.
  As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) said and as the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) said and as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Sabo) said, we cannot do this work without very conscientiousness, very 
able, very hard-working staff; and although this has been a difficult 
process, they have stayed with it, and their effort was a critical 
component of our success.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, I will support the conference report, which 
includes the additions which I think will make the Treasury Postal bill 
a signable bill by the President.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for shepherding a very, very complex bill 
through a very complicated legislative process.
  Most of all, I also want to thank the regional delegation for working 
together in a bipartisan manner, and the administration and my House 
leadership for the inclusion of the $600 million for the Woodrow Wilson 
bridge. This is a major artery along the North-South expressway. It is 
in danger of falling into the Potomac River if a new bridge is not 
completed. This will complete the $1.5 billion Federal obligation and 
just my thanks to all concerned.
  Finally, to my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), I 
thank him for his leadership in the last 6 years of this subcommittee. 
It has meant a lot to this region. It has meant a lot to this country, 
and it has been just a pleasure to serve with the gentleman in this 
capacity and the value the gentleman has added to our region, I think 
is second to anything anybody has ever done. The gentleman has made a 
huge difference.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my friend from Virginia (Mr. 
Davis) and say we see a lot of partisanship, but one of the positive 
things for me in this Congress is working with the Washington 
metropolitan delegation which is very bipartisan. It is almost half and 
half in terms of its makeup, and we work very well together. This was a 
great success for our region and for our country. I thank the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) 
and certainly the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and our four 
Senators who worked so hard on reaching this objective. I thank the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for yielding to me.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). It has been a pleasure working with the 
gentleman, and I also thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) as 
well.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to vote for this legislation. I want, 
first, to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), our ranking member, and the 
majority and minority staff, John Blazey for the majority and Cheryl 
Smith for the minority staff, for the work that they have done; and it 
is a very fine piece of work on what is a bipartisan bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I want particularly to thank the chair and the ranking 
member and the majority and minority

[[Page 21321]]

staff for working with me and the other Members of the Massachusetts 
delegation to repair the necessary working relationship between the 
Federal Highway Administration and the Massachusetts Highway 
Administration, making certain that my State would continue to have or 
could depend upon a balanced construction program during the final 
years of the construction of what is the largest and most complex 
construction project in the history of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to pay tribute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman, who will move on to some other 
subcommittee or some other ranking chairmanship position in the next 
Congress. I want to commend him for what has been the hallmarks of his 
tenure as chairman which, in my mind, clearly has been both fairness 
and safety.

                              {time}  1100

  Throughout his years he has focused on the safety of the traveling 
public, whether it was rail, whether it was air travel, whether it was 
highway travel. In that, I want to commend him for his persistence in 
his advocacy of what I believe is a carefully and judiciously crafted 
phase-in of the .08 blood alcohol content requirement.
  Remember, here, no one loses any dollars for at least 6 years. I do 
not in any way doubt that the blood alcohol content provision can be 
viewed as only one part of a comprehensive program in dealing with 
driving under the influence. But if adopted, if adhered to, if 
enforced, this provision can save 500 lives every year, and in so 
doing, save hundreds and probably thousands of families from the grief 
of loss that occurs when there is a senseless DUI accident. I commend 
the chairman for his persistence in his work on that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, 2 decades ago I had the privilege of being 
first elected to serve here in the Congress, and one of the greatest 
members of that class in 1980 was the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf), who, as has been pointed out by virtually everyone here, has 
served extraordinarily well as chairman over the past 6 years of this 
very important subcommittee.
  I listen to my colleagues who are proud to represent this Washington, 
D.C. metropolitan area, and yet I have to say that the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has also done an awful lot to help us deal with one 
of the most pressing problems that we have in my State, especially in 
the southern part of the State which I am privileged to represent, and 
that is transportation.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) just mentioned the focus 
on safety, and that, obviously, is a high priority. I want to praise 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for focusing on air traffic 
safety, which is obviously a very important issue, near and dear to 
virtually all of us who live outside of the Washington, D.C. 
metropolitan area who travel by air regularly.
  Of course, for those of us who suffered through the horrible delays 
this past summer, we want to bring about some kind of resolution to 
ensure that that kind of thing does not, as many have predicted, get 
worse.
  Let me talk briefly about just four specific Southern California 
priorities that we have.
  First and foremost, for years we have worked together to deal with 
the challenges that have confronted the Metropolitan Transit Authority 
in Los Angeles. Dealing with the construction there has been difficult, 
but the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has regularly been 
understanding of the very important needs that we have faced there, and 
the fact that in Southern California, Los Angeles was the largest city 
on the face of the Earth without a mass transit system. The gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has helped us as we have moved ahead to try 
and address that need.
  Specifically, in the area that I represent, there are three 
particular priorities that we have. That is, number one, when we look 
at the fact that we live in a global economy, international trade is 
very, very important for our survival. The ports of Long Beach and Los 
Angeles are going to be providing an opportunity to expand trade in 
both directions, to the Pacific Rim and other parts of the world.
  A project known as the Alameda Corridor was established to make sure 
that goods could get to and from the ports of Long Beach and Los 
Angeles in the Los Angeles area to downtown.
  One of the things that we had to realize, though, and it did not come 
to our attention until a few years ago, is that once things got to 
downtown Los Angeles, they had to get to the rest of the Nation. So we 
established a priority known as the Alameda Corridor East so on the 
east side of Los Angeles, going to the rest of the country, we could 
deal with grade separations and other problems that existed there that 
would jeopardize the ability of goods to move in both directions. So 
there is very important funding here for the Alameda Corridor East, 
which is important.
  The other priority we have in our area, which is a very, very 
important one and with a great partnership, as the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) knows between the local communities, the private 
sector, and the Federal Government, has been something known as 
Foothill Transit. It has had wonderful success.
  Again, I believe, as I have testified before, the subcommittee of the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) should be a model for the rest of 
the country of how we can see disparate levels of government come 
together, along with the private sector, to proceed with meeting this 
very, very important need.
  Then there is one little item, we in Southern California you may 
recall suffered fires and ensuing rains which caused mudslides. We have 
a very important road known as Chantry Flats, which has been wiped out 
because of those storms. I am very appreciative of the fact that we are 
going to be able to have the resources in to make sure that we 
construct that and get it back on track.
  So let me just say that along with the priorities that have been 
outlined by so many, the Coast Guard, which the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) talked about, very important to California, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is part of that important Maryland, Virginia, 
and metropolitan Washington D.C. area.
  His interest in dealing with national concerns, even those 3,000 
miles away, has not gone unnoticed; and I greatly appreciate the time 
and effort he has put in to addressing our needs.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the authorizing 
committee.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I join gladly in the praise of the retiring chairman, 
retiring from the chairmanship, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), 
for his steadfast advocacy for safety in transportation, which has been 
very effective and has indeed made our Nation's transportation systems 
safer.
  This may indeed be a good bill, but the manager's report does not 
measure up to that standard. It includes a listing of 162 airport 
projects which the managers would like to see funded out of FAA 
discretionary funds.
  In the past, to be sure, there have been listings of projects for 
specific airports, but without specific dollar amounts and with less 
prescriptive language, and far fewer projects, only a handful compared 
to the 162 listed in this manager's report, or in excess of $300 
million.
  I know that gold rush did not start in this body, it started with the 
other body. I would like to clarify the legal situation on these 
projects.
  The law governing aviation discretionary funds requires the FAA to 
establish, and they have established for decades, a priority system to 
decide which projects will get these very limited funds. The highest 
priority goes to

[[Page 21322]]

projects that will bring airports into compliance with safety 
standards. Next are projects that allow the airport to accommodate 
large aircraft. The next is standards, standards that continue with 
other forms of development in aviation.
  Many of the projects listed in this manager's report, I concede, are 
of sufficient quality in and of themselves, as we have analyzed them, 
to qualify for funding under these established FAA standards in the 
regular order. But what I want to point out is that aviation is not 
like highways. An improvement to a highway project in Boston does not 
necessarily benefit California, but in the national system of 
integrated airports, an improvement in one airport, a major hub 
airport, means potentially a vast improvement for all of aviation.
  The FAA should have and does have discretion to fund improvements to 
increase capacity, to improve safety, to reduce bottlenecks. If next 
year we have the same kind of delays and problems in aviation that we 
have had this year and last year, travelers might not feel so 
comfortable traveling in an aviation system designed by Congress.
  I want to make it clear that the language in a report cannot override 
a priority system established under the governing law. I would like to 
quote from the decision of the Comptroller General that was found in a 
report expressing congressional preference.
  The Comptroller General found that Congress cannot require the Navy 
to select a particular aircraft the language in the committee report 
wanted the Navy to require and to abandon normal procurement 
procedures.
  The Comptroller General wrote: ``It is our view that when Congress 
merely appropriates lump sum amounts without statutorily restricting 
what can be done with those funds, a clear inference arises that it 
does not intend to impose legally binding restrictions, and indicia in 
committee reports and other legislative history as to how the funds 
should be or are expected to be spent do not establish any legal 
requirements on Federal agencies.''
  Accordingly, I believe it is incumbent on FAA to continue to use its 
priority system to award discretionary funds and assure that those 
funds will be directed to the greatest safety benefit and not to the 
specific, narrowly drawn, targeted little projects listed in this 
manager's report.
  As chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation for many years, I 
steadfastly resisted designating projects in our authorizing bill and 
have continued, as ranking member of the full committee, to resist such 
designation. It should not be done in a manager's report of 
appropriations.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf), for all his hard work, I thank him very much. As a new member on 
the subcommittee, I do appreciate the gentleman's diligence, his 
sincerity, as well as his equal handling of us as we worked together in 
a bipartisan way on this committee, and thanks to Mr. John Blazey and 
his staff for all the work they have done in working with us.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Sabo) for his style, grace, and hard work as he works together 
with all of us to make sure that our transportation needs are met on 
our side of the aisle; and to Cheryl Smith on the staff, as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the transportation bill that we 
have before us. It is a good bill, but it is not a perfect bill, as 
many things are not in the world that we live in today.
  The bill is good, and I want to make a special point to thank the 
staff on both sides of the aisle for working with Michigan on our 
transit concerns. We do have a problem in Michigan, and it is a long 
problem. I hope as this Congress moves forward in the 107th Congress 
that we will address that problem.
  Our State Department of Transportation must not work around the 
appropriations process, must not overlook the Members on both sides of 
the aisle, and must work with us as members of appropriations, both the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and myself, who represent our 
State and our entire State delegation.
  I thank the staff for their work with us to make sure that all the 
Members' concerns are addressed. I pledge that I will continue to do 
that with the Members, and will hope our State Department of 
Transportation will do the same, and not try to usurp our 
appropriations authority.
  I want to speak briefly on the .08 blood alcohol level. I think it is 
wonderful and it will save at least 500 lives, as has been mentioned, 
but we can do more, and not just on this issue, by having further, 
stronger laws that will save more American lives. The .08 by itself, it 
will save some, but I think we can do better. We can enforce open 
container laws. We can have administrators revoking licenses and not 
waiting for a judicial decision. We can also have mandatory blood 
testing after accidents to encourage people not to drink. I think all 
of that must work together if in fact we are going to really address 
drunk driving in our country. It is a problem. This may be a first 
step, but we need to do more.
  The chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) our ranking member, I thank them 
for their time, for their insistence that we bring a bill that provides 
safety for our American citizens and also addresses the nation's 
highway needs.
  Transit in America is still important. Many people in America do not 
drive cars, so our highways have to be safe, our transit systems have 
to be adequate, and we have to continue to work together.
  I rise in support of the conference report. The process is a little 
less than what is desired, but I am happy that we have reached this 
point. I urge my colleagues to vote for the transportation conference 
report.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Granger).

                              {time}  1115

  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
fiscal year 2001 Transportation appropriations conference report. Not 
only does this legislation continue our critical investment in our 
Nation's infrastructure, it also appropriates $5 billion to pay down 
the national debt.
  This legislation is consistent with the Transportation Equity Act for 
the 21st Century. It provides an increase of almost 7 percent in 
Federal aid highway spending. Outlays, mostly needed for transportation 
infrastructure, are up 13.3 percent.
  The conference agreement also includes $720 million for emergency 
relief for highways to cover the cost of highway repairs resulting from 
previous disasters. In short, this legislation addresses our Nation's 
transportation needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I am honored to serve on the Subcommittee on 
Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, and I want to thank 
the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) for the outstanding job 
that he has done as chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank John Blazey, Rich Efford, Stephanie 
Gupta, and Linda Muir for all their hard work and long hours. I feel 
fortunate to have the opportunity to work with such an outstanding 
staff and committee.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Northern Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), my friend and colleague and the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, 
very much for yielding to me for his leadership on this bill, and I 
thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation for his exemplary leadership.
  This bill is balanced. It is fair. It is responsible. It maintains 
and in fact improves our Nation's entire transportation infrastructure. 
I urge that it be

[[Page 21323]]

supported. It also makes our roadways safer by encouraging States to 
adopt stricter thresholds for drunk driving. It contains a matter of 
vital importance to the entire mid-Atlantic corridor and to interstate 
commerce.
  As Members may be aware, this metropolitan Washington region suffers 
from the second worst traffic congestion in the entire country. No 
place is this problem more critical than at the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. 
It was built 40 years ago. It is crumbling before our eyes. Ten lanes 
of traffic are having to converge into six lanes.
  We are told that, if we do not get this bridge rebuilt within 5 to 6 
years, we may have to divert 20,000 trucks from being able to cross the 
bridge. Not only would that be a nightmare scenario for the region, but 
it would be a severe handicap to this Nation's economy. So the $600 
million that is included in this bridge is critically important.
  I would remind any Members that have questions about this, this is a 
federally owned bridge. It is a Federal responsibility. It will be 
turned over to the States as soon as it is reconstructed, as soon as we 
have a new bridge built. The States will pick up the financing from 
here on this. But this was necessary, and it was necessary now.
  I am very appreciative, not only to all the Members of the 
subcommittee, its leadership, its staff, but also the Members of the 
regional delegation on the House and Senate side who worked together in 
a bipartisan constructive manner.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Chairman Wolf) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Transportation 
bill, and I wanted to congratulate both the gentleman from Virginia 
(Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the 
ranking member. I want to particularly thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Chairman Wolf) for his courageous leadership on the .08 
issue. We have been fighting for this a very long time. Without his 
hard work, we would not be at this point today.
  When I first introduced this legislation 3 years ago, I knew that it 
was going to be an uphill road to victory. I also knew that this was 
the right thing for the American people.
  Quite simply, this is about saving lives. Five hundred to 600 lives 
will be saved in the United States each year when every State adopts 
the .08 standard. Tens of thousands of injuries will be avoided. These 
two statistics are too compelling to ignore.
  What we are talking about is not putting our values on someone else. 
All we are saying is, if one is going to drink, just do not drive. This 
is the right standard. It is the right time.
  We know that the relative risk of a fatality on the road is 11 times 
greater at BACs between .08 and .09.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman 
Wolf) again for his courageous work on this important issue.
  I rise today in strong support of the Transportation Appropriations 
bill. I am also pleased to announce that today, Congress is standing up 
in defense of safer roads. Congress is poised with this vote to make 
.08 the law of the land.
  I want to thank Chairman Wolf for his courageous leadership on this 
issue. Without his hard work, we wouldn't be at this point today.
  When I first introduced legislation on this issue three years ago, I 
knew that it was going to be an uphill road to victory. I also knew 
that this was the right thing for the American people.
  Quite simply, this is about saving lives. 500-600 lives will be saved 
in the U.S. each year when every state adopts the .08 standard. And 
tens of thousands of injuries will be avoided. These statistics are too 
compelling to ignore. There are just too many accidents involving .08 
drivers for us to stand by. This is the right standard and this is the 
right time.
  We know that the relative risk of a fatality on the road is eleven 
times greater at BACs between .05 and .09 than with no alcohol in your 
blood. And the Administration and the Department of Transportation 
released two reports last month showing that .08 works for states that 
have already adopted it. In fact, Illinois alone, which adopted .08 in 
1997, has seen a 13.7% decline in the number of drunk drivers involved 
in fatal crashes.
  We have fought so hard for this standard over the cries of the 
restaurant and liquor lobbies. They say that ordinary people who have a 
glass of wine with dinner will be pulled over and charged with drunk 
driving. That's simply not true. It takes four drinks in one hour on an 
empty stomach to get a 170 pound man to .08. No dinner, just drinks. It 
takes four of them. That's a far cry from a glass of wine with dinner.
  We knew this then and we know it now. Drinking and driving do not 
mix.
  Again, I just want to express my great pleasure to announce this 
important victory today. I urge my colleagues to support this 
conference report.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman 
Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), ranking member, for 
the work they have done on a bill that has very many good things, 
whether it be the Coast Guard, the .08 blood alcohol level, highway 
safety and construction, and mass transit.
  But I do have two problems with this bill. The first is this bill is 
indicative of the fact that the budget process in this Congress has 
become a fallacy. This bill is over the House mark, it is over the 
Senate mark, and it is over the administration's mark. It is leading us 
down the path to where we have eroded or evaded the Budget Act and even 
the Unified Budget Act of 1968. So I think that is a problem in this 
bill.
  Second of all, I have to say this bill includes language which 
prohibits the Houston Metro from using its share of Federal funds for a 
light rail project. The Houston Metro is the only agency in the country 
that has that prohibition. It seems to me this is a case of Washington 
knows best, telling the City of Houston and its areas what it is going 
to do.
  They are going to build the rail project anyway with their own money. 
But Houston will be the only city that is not allowed to use Federal 
funds. I think this is a mistake, and I think it is a problem in this 
bill. I would hope in the future we can correct it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Sabo) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his 
leadership and his excellent efforts with the issue of .08. I think 
that we will save lives, and I appreciate having the opportunity to 
vote on this legislation that includes this instructive and positive 
legislative initiative.
  Let me thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking 
member, as well for his kindness; and I say that to him on behalf of 
the constituents of the 18th Congressional District. We appreciate the 
gentleman's balance and also his interest in our issues, and that of 
all of our colleagues.
  This bill has some very good elements: The ATP program in Houston for 
$2.5 million and a connectivity program for $750,000 that is very 
important to the residents of the third ward.
  The pipeline safety allocation is very important to me, and the 
transit programs are likewise. I am delighted that we saw fit to ensure 
that more people in this Nation have rail. I might cite for my 
colleagues, Atlanta, Baltimore, Canton, Akron, Cleveland, Florida, and 
a variety of other places.
  So my concern is, Mr. Speaker, that here we are in Washington 
dictating to the citizens of Houston that they cannot have light rail. 
This is the mayor of the city of Houston, the county judge, the 
partnership, residents and others who have expressed their desire for 
light rail.
  I would simply say that I applaud this bill. I will support this 
bill. But I look forward to the needs of the people of Houston being 
addressed in the next session so that we can move forward on our light 
rail project.

[[Page 21324]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 
4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) has 
30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the 
ranking member, for doing an excellent job with this bill. I am going 
to vote for this bill.
  I have served on this subcommittee every year that I have been on the 
Committee on Appropriations and have dealt with transportation problems 
in many different cities as well as transportation issues for the City 
of Houston and the metroplex around Houston. Up until now, we have had 
excellent opportunity to work with Houston.
  Unfortunately, we have a new mass transit system that has decided to 
break what I thought was a model for the Nation of different 
transportation entities working together and sometimes overlapping and 
being concerned about mobility in Houston. We now have a metro system 
that has decided that they are going to build a megamulti-billion 
dollar rail system without the input of the people of Houston, without 
the people of Houston even gathering the information that would deal 
with this.
  It is the age-old bureaucratic strategy of let us build a little 
bitty short system, and then when it does not work, we can force the 
people into building a bigger system.
  Now, I have very serious concerns about that. I especially have 
concerns that, when we have a full-funding agreement on the mass 
transit monies going to Houston, that they want to come in and 
undermine that full funding agreement by taking some of that money and 
putting it into a rail system that has not been designed or considered 
by everybody in the Houston metroplex.
  Therefore, I told the Houston Metro System that, when they get their 
act together, when they look at congestion studies, when they look at 
the regional mobility plan, then we can talk about a rail system as 
part of that overall regional mobility plan.
  I have one other issue. I am for .08. Texas has .08. But I have very 
strong concerns about the Federal Government blackmailing States into 
doing something that maybe the States have a different idea in how to 
solve the problem.
  But I am going to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do 
so also.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very 
much for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me quickly say with great respect to the gentleman 
from Houston, Texas (Mr. DeLay), that the City of Houston, the County 
of Harris has a regional mobility plan. In fact, County Judge Echols 
has sent this multipage document to all Members of Congress. In 
addition, the Houston Partnership right now is involved in a regional 
plan, an additional plan.
  I know that the Congress needs to move forward on this bill, and we 
cannot debate local issues. But I hope the Congress realizes this is 
not a local issue. This is a question of equality and parity when all 
of the other areas of the Nation are able to get dollars for light 
rail. I think, if the community wants light rail and meets the 
requirement, then this Congress should give them consideration. I look 
forward in the future Congresses and elsewhere to provide that for my 
community.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me just comment a little bit on the 
situation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). Nobody has been a 
stronger advocate in my times on the committee for mass transit in 
Houston than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). He had the 
subcommittee go down there years ago to look at it, and I understand 
what he is trying to do. The same thing has happened in other parts of 
the country. People want to immediately move to rail.
  In my area, we eventually would like to have rail going out to Dulles 
Airport. I support that. But our intermediate step is the rapid bus 
transit which will be for one-tenth of the cost. In some respects, that 
is really modeled after what has been taking place in Houston. So what 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is saying is one moves to that and 
then afterward. So I think he has been a very strong advocate for the 
entire time.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I echo the comments of 
the regional delegation who worked together. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge, 
it is the whole north-south corridor which, if it ever collapsed or 
prohibited the use of trucks, it would just devastate the economy of 
the Northeast.
  The Coast Guard, as the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) said, 
the necessary increase, particularly for the men and women who serve 
and are risking their lives; the increase for drug interdiction, the 
increase for the FAA; the .08 which will save so many lives.
  So in closing, I urge passage. Again, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo). I could not have had a better working 
relationship. God bless. Thank you.
  I urge the passage of the bill.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of this 
conference report. I say reluctant because there is a provision in this 
bill which tramples state rights.
  The conference agreement requires states to adopt a .08 blood alcohol 
law and provides highway sanctions beginning in fiscal year 2004. 
Reductions in highway funds of 2 percent per year would be phased in, 
not to exceed 8 percent, for those states that are in noncompliance. 
Now I strongly support measures to discourage drunk driving. But this 
provision disregards the right of states to regulate alcohol sales. 
Such a provision should not be included as a part of this conference 
report and it should have been rejected.
  Unfortunately it was not. And as opposed as I am to this provision I 
am going to vote for this report. It provides much needed federal funds 
to increase the capacity and safety of our nation's transportation 
infrastructure. In total, the bill provides nearly $17.8 billion in 
discretionary budget authority, an increase of $3.5 billion over the 
fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Outlays, mostly needed for 
transportation infrastructure, are up 13.3 percent compared to the 
fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The conference agreement provides $12 
billion for the Federal Aviation Administration--$2.5 billion (25 
percent) over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and 7 percent more 
than the Administration's request. Funding for the airport improvement 
program is $3.2 billion, an increase of $1.25 billion--or 64 percent--
over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. It also includes $5 billion is 
provided in the conference report to reduce the public debt.
  Thus, despite my misgivings about the impact of this bill on state's 
rights. I will vote for this bill. However, I will continue to work 
with my colleagues to overturn this provision or to lessen its impact 
on state's rights.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take this opportunity to 
congratulate all those responsible for bringing to the House Floor a 
transportation appropriations measure that will be of great benefit to 
this country. I know a lot of hard work went into the crafting of this 
conference report and I want everyone who contributed to it to know 
that they have my thanks.
  Assuming this legislation is signed into law, as I surely hope it 
will be, Americans will benefit in a number of ways.
  First, they will be able to travel more quickly and easily thanks to 
the multitude of highway, rail, airport and mass transit projects that 
are funded by this measure. With traffic congestion growing on our 
existing roads and at our airports, that is very important.
  Second, they will know that the taxes they have paid to finance 
highway and airport improvements are being spent for those purposes. In 
this day and age, when cynicism about government is all too prevalent, 
it is equally important that money raised for a particular purpose be 
spent as intended.
  And last but not least, they will have reason to believe that the 
foundation is being laid for a transportation network that will meet 
people's needs for decades to come. Given the increase in commuting 
times in many of our metropolitan areas, that is reassuring.
  A good example of why people should derive reassurance from this 
legislation can be found in the transportation infrastructure 
investments it makes in the Chicago area. Not only does it provide 
funding for three METRA commuter rail projects in the region, including

[[Page 21325]]

one in the district I am privileged to represent, but it also funds a 
pair of Chicago Transit Authority route rehabilitation projects. In 
addition, and this is very reassuring, the language and the explanation 
of the conference report pave the way for Full Funding Grant Agreements 
for all five of those projects, which greatly improves the prospects 
that they will be completed on schedule.
  In addition, the conference report makes several investments in the 
development of several future-oriented intelligent transportation 
systems in the Chicagoland, including one for Lake County, Illinois, 
much of which I am privileged to represent. Also, it funds a study of 
the possibility of extending METRA's commuter rail service from Chicago 
all the way to Milwaukee, plus it provides money for bus routes and 
numerous other transportation improvements.
  All of these things bode well for the residents of my district, the 
people of the Chicago area and all of those who come to the Chicagoland 
on vacation or to conduct business. On their behalf, I would like to 
reiterate my thanks to all those responsible and to urge enactment of 
this legislation.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
4475, the FY 2001 Transportation and Related Agencies Conference 
Report. This bill includes significant funding for projects that will 
ease traffic congestion in Northern Virginia which was the dubious 
distinction of the second worst traffic congestion in the nation. Most 
importantly, I would like to applaud the inclusion of $600 million for 
the replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. This is money that is 
desperately needed to fund a vital East Coast Interstate link. 
Additionally, this bill contains important funding for other Northern 
Virginia projects including $50 million for rail out the Dulles 
Corridor, $3 million for bus funding in Prince William County, $500,000 
to complete the Fairfax County trail system, $500,000 for the Fair 
Lakes League Shuttle, $500,000 for Potomac River Jet ferry boat funding 
for ferry service from Prince William County to the Navy Yard and 
Washington Harbour, and $5 million for 14th Street Bridge improvements.
  Since I first came to Congress in 1995, finding the appropriate 
solution for replacing and paying for a new Woodrow Wilson Bridge has 
been one of my top priorities. We face a critical time frame to follow 
in replacing the old bridge structure in order to avoid regional and 
eastern seaboard gridlock. The replacement of this rapidly aging 
structure is urgent and desperately needed. The $600 million we secured 
today brings the total federal commitment to $1.5 billion. This will 
fulfill our obligation to this project.
  For quite some time, the federal government and Virginia and Maryland 
have known that the bridge needed to be replaced, or truck traffic 
would have to be rerouted throughout the entire Washington Metropolitan 
area. However, there has been ongoing debate about the level of 
commitment the federal government needed to provide to the project. 
That is because the Woodrow Wilson Bridge is truly a unique 
circumstance. It is the only federally-owned bridge in the United 
States, it is the midpoint between Maine and Florida on Interstate 95, 
it is technically located in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of 
Columbia, and it links the Capital Beltway at its southern crossing 
point between Maryland and Virginia. These factors have all combined to 
significantly shorten the life of the current bridge and create the 
dire circumstance that our region and the east coast faces.
  As the midpoint between Maine and Florida in the Interstate system, 
it carries an unusually large amount of interstate commerce up and down 
the east coast. In 1993, it was estimated by the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics that 1.3 percent of gross domestic product 
carried by truck crossed the Wilson Bridge. That is $58 billion, a 
figure that I am certain has only increased in the past seven years. 
Four hundred and fifty miles is the average distance traveled by truck 
shipments once they have crossed the bridge. It is important to note 
the many cities that fall within that 450 mile travel shed: Boston, 
Baltimore, Philadelphia, Norfolk, New York City, Richmond, Raleigh, 
Newark, Savannah, Hartford, and Trenton. Forty-nine percent of heavy 
trucks, or 7,000 trucks crossing the bridge go beyond the immediate 
area. That means that consumers up and down the east coast would face 
higher prices for products and services if truck traffic had to be 
rerouted and delivery of products was slowed.
  As the southern crossing point for the Capital Beltway, it has 
carried more traffic and heavy trucks than it was designed to hold. 
When the bridge was opened in 1961, it was designed as a lightweight, 
flexible structure to serve a 4-lane beltway without heavy truck 
traffic. As early as 1969, the bridge began carrying more traffic than 
its designed capacity of 75,000 vehicles. In 1975, the decision was 
made that Interstate 95 should not be routed through Washington, D.C. 
as originally planned, and the bridge is now the default southern 
crossing for I-95. To accommodate that change, the beltway was widened 
to eight lanes but the structural limitations of the bridge meant that 
it could not be widened. While we may all now agree with the 1975 
decision, it had serious implications for the life span of the Woodrow 
Wilson Bridge. In 1988, the bridge begins to carry 150,000 vehicles 
daily. This history doomed the original bridge structure to fail much 
earlier than anticipated and put us in the situation we face today.
  In TEA-21, this Committee and the 105th Congress recognized the 
federal responsibility for the bridge and funded the construction of 
the bridge at $900 million. As I have said, now we have come up with 
the additional $600 million federal commitment to allow this project to 
go forward. Virginia and Maryland must now make their funding 
commitment available so this urgent project goes forward on time.
  While the Wilson Bridge project will receive a large amount of 
federal funding, without this commitment for the Bridge, the entire 
Washington Metropolitan area could face potential gridlock. One of the 
nation's strongest regional economies and the seat of our federal 
government could face a grave threat should this bridge project not 
move forward in a timely manner. As we have seen in the past, a 
shutdown Wilson Bridge can shut down this region and our Nation's 
Capital.
  I am also proud that we have been able to include an additional $50 
million for rail out the Dulles Corridor. This follows on the $86 
million I was able to secure in the TEA-21 legislation in the 105th 
Congress and the $25 million we were able to secure in last year's 
transportation appropriations bill. This is a critically needed project 
that will serve the ongoing growth out the Dulles Corridor. Rail to 
Dulles will significantly ease congestion in the Tysons Corner region 
and through Reston and Herndon in my Congressional District.
  I would also like to note the inclusion of three projects that will 
help ease congestion in the I-95 corridor and for my constituents in 
Prince William County. H.R. 4475 provides funding for necessary 
improvements on the 14th Street Bridge. These improvements will 
significantly relieve the bottleneck that occurs during the morning and 
evening rush hours. This bill includes $3 million for bus funding for 
Prince William County to replace an aging fleet. Also, it includes 
$500,000 for funding for ferry service from Prince William County to 
the Washington Navy Yard and Washington Harbour. These two items will 
provide alternatives to those who otherwise face long commutes through 
the Springfield Interchange replacement project.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge serves the people 
who serve our government in all three branches of government. Gridlock 
in the Nation's Capital is one of the gravest threats facing the daily 
operation of our Republic. I would also like to thank my good friend, 
Mr. Wolf for his leadership on this important bill and his leadership 
chairing the Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations. His 
commitment to providing the necessary transportation funding for this 
nation's vital projects is enabling all our communities address the 
tremendous growth we are undergoing nationwide and ensuring that our 
families are able to spend less time in traffic and more time at home.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss H.R. 4475, the fiscal 
year 2001 transportation appropriations bill.
  I am pleased that the conference report honors the funding guarantees 
in TEA-21 and AIR-21, while still providing sufficient funds for other 
important transportation programs such as the Coast Guard and AMTRAK.
  As you know, I have long believed that we could honor the principle 
of dedicating trust fund revenues to their intended purposes while 
still maintaining sufficient funding for other important transportation 
programs, and this bill proves it.
  By fully funding TEA-21 and AIR-21, this bill will have far-reaching 
impacts on the quality of life in our communities, the nation's 
economy, and our competitiveness in the world marketplace.
  The benefits of shortened travel times, increased productivity, and 
improved safety will affect every American and every business everyday.
  In particular, the resources provided by this bill are an important 
first step toward reducing the aviation gridlock that we began to 
experience last summer.
  I am disappointed by the conferees' decision to include many 
legislative and unauthorized provisions that, had they been included in 
the House bill, would have violated the rules of the House.
  I am particularly concerned by the provision that will penalize each 
state that does not

[[Page 21326]]

adopt a legal blood alcohol content limit of .08 percent by reducing 
that state's federal highway funding.
  Congress addressed the problem of drunk driving most recently 2 years 
ago in TEA-21.
  In TEA-21, Congress provided a generous financial incentive to states 
that adopt .08 BAC laws, as well as incentives for a number of other 
anti-drunk driving approaches that have proven very effective in 
targeting the most egregious offenders.
  TEA-21 conferees wanted to encourage states to adopt a .08 BAC law, 
but did not want to do so at the expense of other, more effective 
programs that the states were employing to reduce drunk driving 
accidents.
  The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as the committee of 
jurisdiction over this provision, will look at the .08 funding sanction 
very carefully in the next Congress to determine whether or not it is 
appropriate and effective.
  In addition, I am disappointed that the conference report alters the 
distribution of funds made available by the revenue aligned budget 
authority provision of TEA-21, which increases or decreases funding 
based on actual gas tax revenues deposited in the Highway Trust Fund.
  In doing so, the conference report alters the distribution of 
contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund that was painstakingly 
arrived at by the TEA-21 conferees.
  I am also concerned about the unprecedented earmarking of airport 
improvement program funds in the report accompanying this bill.
  The AIP discretionary funds earmarked by this report are funds that 
the FAA should be targeting to the highest priority safety, security 
and capacity enhancing projects.
  FAA has its own internal priority system for deciding which airports 
should get the few discretionary dollars that are available.
  This system puts the highest priority on projects that will enhance 
safety. That is entirely appropriate.
  In issuing discretionary AIP grants, I would urge the FAA to stick to 
its priority system and not be swayed by earmarks in the joint 
explanatory statement accompanying this conference report, which after 
all, are not legally binding.
  If, nevertheless, the FAA chooses to fund these earmarks, I urge the 
FAA to look, in the first instance, to the airport's entitlement funds 
to provide the money.
  Finally, I am also disappointed that the conference report includes 
funding for transit new start projects that were neither authorized in 
TEA-21 nor cleared by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  Demand for new starts funding already far exceeds available 
resources. Funding unauthorized projects spreads limited resources too 
broadly, and will produce a lower return on federal investment.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
conference report and commend the Committee for its hard work.
  I am especially pleased and delighted because this Conference Report 
includes funding for the New Jersey Community Development Center's 
``Transportation Opportunity Center,'' which is located in Paterson, 
New Jersey.
  The Transportation Opportunity Center will demonstrate the vital role 
that transportation and the transportation industry plays in extending 
economic opportunity to low income individuals--particularly those 
moving from welfare to work.
  The Center is in the heart of Paterson's historic district and will 
be used to educate low-income citizens about using existing public 
transportation to access suburban-based jobs.
  It is through innovative programs like the Transportation Opportunity 
Center that we can continue to increase access to transportation for 
low-income citizens who are striving to participate in this prosperous 
economy.
  These changes are good for our environment, good for our economy, and 
good for our quality of life.
  I have said so many times--and I think you would all agree--that we 
do not invest in our transportation system merely to improve roads and 
bridges.
  Transportation is not merely about getting from point A to point B. 
We invest in transportation to improve the very quality of life for our 
citizens.
  That is what this project will do.
  Again, I thank the Committee for its hard work, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this Conference Report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 344, 
nays 50, not voting 39, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 516]

                               YEAS--344

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--50

     Archer
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bentsen
     Boehner
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Chabot
     Coburn
     Cox
     Cubin
     DeMint
     Doggett
     Gillmor
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Largent
     Obey
     Oxley
     Petri
     Pitts
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Stearns
     Stump
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Toomey
     Velazquez

[[Page 21327]]



                             NOT VOTING--39

     Ackerman
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Campbell
     Carson
     Clay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Eshoo
     Franks (NJ)
     Goss
     Hansen
     Hefley
     Hutchinson
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Lazio
     Lewis (GA)
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Paul
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Strickland
     Talent
     Vento
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wise

                              {time}  1150

  Messrs. BENTSEN and HERGER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. LUTHER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________