[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23670-23676]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 23671]]

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 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

[[Page 23672]]

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. 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. 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 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.

[[Page 23673]]

  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. 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. 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 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

[[Page 23674]]

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. Petri. 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.

              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)

[[Page 23675]]

 
    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.
  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

[[Page 23676]]

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.''

                          ____________________