[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11949-11963]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
178 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 2299.

[[Page 11950]]



                              {time}  1702


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2299) making appropriations for the Department of 
Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, with Mr. Camp in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
bill was open for amendment to page 53 line 12, through page 53 line 
17.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word to engage the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Transportation in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I note that the subcommittee's recommendation for the 
New Starts program does not include any funding for the Second Avenue 
Subway in New York City. This is an important transportation investment 
planned in the metropolitan area, and it is vitally necessary to ensure 
fluid transit in an already over-congested metropolitan area. The 
project received $3 million for continued analysis and design in fiscal 
year 2001.
  I understand that the subcommittee's recommendation provides funding 
for only those projects that have full funding grant agreements in 
place, are likely to have full funding grant agreements in place in the 
very near future, or are in final design. While the Second Avenue 
Subway does not meet this criteria, it is important that the analysis 
and design continue on this important project. The MTA assures me that 
the project will be in preliminary design by the end of fiscal year 
2001.
  The State and the MTA have made a major commitment for the project 
and have included $1.05 billion in the MTA's capital budget.
  I ask the chairman that if the Senate were to include an 
appropriation for the Second Avenue Subway in its fiscal year 2002 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, 
that the subcommittee be accommodating to the greatest extent possible 
to ensure that Federal funding for this project is continued in fiscal 
year 2002.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's 
commitment to this project, and her observations about the criteria the 
subcommittee used in developing its recommendations are accurate. The 
subcommittee had an enormous number of requests for new light rail 
transit systems that we simply could not accommodate. We did not have 
the money. Unfortunately, we had to say ``sorry'' quite a bit this 
year.
  I can assure the gentlewoman that should the Senate include funding 
for the subway in its version of the bill, that we will give it every 
consideration.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 330. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for engineering work related to an additional runway 
     at New Orleans International Airport.
       Sec. 331. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or 
     orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation 
     for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted 
     on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan at the Third Conference 
     of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on 
     Climate Change, which has not been submitted to the Senate 
     for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to article 
     II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States Constitution, 
     and which has not entered into force pursuant to article 25 
     of the Protocol.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Olver

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Olver:
       Page 54, line 7, insert before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, except that this limitation does not apply to 
     activities related to the Kyoto Protocol that are otherwise 
     authorized by law (including those activities authorized by 
     the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 
     with respect to which the Senate gave its advice and consent 
     to ratification in October 1992)''.

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly, because this bill is an 
excellent bill, and I respect very much the work of the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), as well as my 
ranking member on the subcommittee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Sabo), but I do take exception to the language of section 331.
  The language in section 331 is language which has been included 
several times over the last few years, at a time when it was 
legitimately believed by the majority that the President in charge of 
the executive departments would have conducted the very actions which 
are prescribed by section 331 in the present legislation.
  On the other hand, President Bush has made it clear that he has no 
intention of implementing the Kyoto Protocol as it has been worked out, 
and has even used much stronger language, that the Kyoto protocol is 
``dead.'' So, at the very least, the language is unnecessary and shows 
perhaps a disbelief in the President's intentions and the President's 
word, which I am sure the majority does not mean to show.
  I would like to point out that just slightly more than 1 month ago, 
that this House adopted in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
which was passed on May 16, a sense of the Congress section relating to 
global warming, and that sense of Congress pointed out that global 
climate change poses a significant threat to national security; that 
most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is attributable to 
human activities; that global average surface temperatures have risen 
since 1861; that in the last 40 years the global average sea level has 
risen, ocean heat content increased, and snow cover and ice extent have 
decreased, which threatens to inundate low-lying Pacific Island nations 
and coastal regions throughout the world; and pointed out at that time 
that the United States has ratified the United Nations framework on 
climate change, which framework, ratified in 1992 by the Senate, was 
proposed for ratification by then President George Herbert Walker Bush 
to be ratified and was ratified by the Senate and took full effect in 
1994, that, quoting from that, ``the parties to the convention are to 
implement policies with the aim of returning to their 1990 levels of 
anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse 
gasses,'' and, to continue, ``that developed country parties should 
take the lead in combatting climate change and the adverse effects 
thereof.''
  So, in that sense, we already have adopted by this Congress the 
language that I have offered in the amendment, which is a clarifying 
amendment, the amendment merely saying that the limiting language 
should not relate, should not apply, to activities that are otherwise 
authorized by law, nor to those activities that are authorized by the 
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change with respect to 
which the Senate gave its advice and consent; and we have a full 
ratification of that treaty, the United Nations Framework Convention.
  So my amendment suggests that the activities that are related to that 
framework convention as ratified in 1992 are in no way proscribed by 
the language of section 331. So it is additional language to limit the 
limitation or to explain that limitation.
  By the way, Mr. Chairman, it is my intent at the appropriate time to 
withdraw this amendment. I just wanted to bring it to the attention of 
the House, that we have a series of activities that we should not be 
proscribing, that those which are previously authorized by law and 
those that are part of the already ratified treaty of the United 
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change should not be 
proscribed. So I intend to withdraw the amendment at the appropriate 
time.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that as we move through the appropriations 
process, that those of us who have a different opinion about climate 
change, for whatever reason, and continue to put language in the 
appropriations

[[Page 11951]]

bills that, however you want to describe it, ties agencies' hands to 
discussing the issue, implementing policy that might not be related to 
Kyoto, but something that the United States wants to do, I would hope 
that Members can sit down at a breakfast, at a dinner, those of us who 
have different opinions on this issue, and discuss that issue, so that 
we can come to a more friendly agreement on how to proceed and assume 
and accumulate more knowledge on this issue and understand each other's 
positions and why.
  Mr. Chairman, this country has not prospered for over 200 years 
because of gagged restraint on the part of its citizens and its 
agencies; this country has prospered because of the accumulation of 
knowledge and wisdom and information and initiative.
  What I would like to do for the Members present is to just discuss 
some of the undisputed facts about climate change. One is 
scientifically sound. Over the last 10,000 years, the planet has warmed 
1 degree centigrade every 1,000 years, except in the last 100 years, 
especially the last 50 years, this country has warmed 1 degree 
Fahrenheit in less than 100 years. So there is a dramatic shift in the 
warming that corresponds to the amount of CO2 and other 
greenhouse gasses as a result of human activity.
  The polar ice caps, in about 50 years, if the present trend 
continues, will be gone. The North Pole, the polar ice caps, glaciers 
are receding around the globe. We are releasing into the atmosphere 
CO2 in decades what took nature millions of years to lock 
up.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. Chairman, CO2 is a natural greenhouse gas that deals 
with the heat balance of the planet, and it took millions of years to 
lock up a lot of this CO2 as a result of dying vegetation 
and so on and so forth. Now, we have been releasing that same amount of 
CO2 in decades, so it has some impact. There is more 
CO2 in the atmosphere now than there has been in the last 
400,000 years.
  Now, just one last fact, Mr. Chairman. CO2 makes up about 
.035 percent of the atmosphere. That is a tiny fraction of our whole 
atmosphere. Yet that tiny amount has an extraordinary effect on the 
heat balance of the planet. We are warm in a tiny, thin sheen of 
atmosphere that covers the earth.
  Now, any change in that, which is fairly dramatic that we are seeing, 
will have an effect on the change of the climate. So basically, human 
activity, because of what we are doing, is having an effect on the 
climate and 95 percent of the international scientists and 16 
scientists from the U.S. just took up overview of this situation with 
an international panel on climate change, and 15 out of the 16 said 
there is no mistake that human activity is having an effect on the 
climate.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I love his theory, but one thing I 
would ask the gentleman. Two years ago I was in New Mexico standing and 
overlooking a huge ice action and the gentleman with me said, you know, 
think about it, Congressman, 12 million years ago there was 284 feet of 
ice where you are standing. I never will ask how the ice got there, but 
it was there, and that has scientifically been proven.
  But I will ask the gentleman from Maryland, what melted that ice all 
the way back to the North Pole when our activity is less than 4,000 
years? So I want to ask the gentleman, what melted it all the way back 
there? It always intrigues me about the idea of how arrogant we are 
thinking we are the real problem for all of the problems that occur on 
this earth.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Young of Alaska, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Gilchrest was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the oil that we are going to drill 
and the gentleman from Maryland is going to help me drill in Alaska if 
he has any wisdom at all; in fact, when we drill, we do not drill 
through rock up there, we drill through ferns, tree trunks, elephants, 
all the way down to the bottom to get to the oil.
  Now, if we are to follow the gentleman's theory and there is not 
going to be any change and we are the fault of all of it, then why did 
this always occur in the past? We take a great deal upon ourselves 
saying it is our fault because of this global warming when, in reality, 
if we look at the past history of this earth, it was warm at one time, 
it was very, very cold at one time; and that was before mankind had 
anything to do with it.
  So before we jump off the cliff, let us understand one thing: we may 
not be as important as the gentleman thinks we are.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I could just 
respond to the chairman, I am going to go off that cliff in a very 
gentle way. I am not leaping off that cliff; I am looking to see what 
is at the bottom.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Gilchrest was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, there has been change in the climate 
ever since we have been a planet and the cycle has run over many 
millions of years and a quick cycle would be 10,000 years. Human beings 
have a right to live on the planet and to improve the standard of 
living as best we can, but we also have a responsibility to understand 
the nature of our impact on the natural processes so that future 
generations, which will be our grandchildren and great grandchildren, 
will not deal with a situation that is more difficult than what we 
have.
  In the last 10,000 years, as a natural consequence of nature, we have 
warmed about 1 degree centigrade every 1,000 years. But in 
correspondence to the internal combustion and burning fossil fuels, we 
have warmed almost that amount in 100 years. So simple observation, to 
me, says we ought to take a look at that acceleration of that warming 
rate.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Regrettably, I came in the middle of this debate and did not have the 
advantage of hearing the earlier comments. I did hear the remarks of 
our committee chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, and those very 
thoughtful remarks of the gentleman from Maryland.
  There is incontrovertible scientific evidence that we are 
experiencing widespread climate change around the globe. The polar ice 
cap, the Arctic region, has shrunk by 40 percent, releasing enormous 
amounts of colder water into the great ocean circulating current, the 
great hyaline circulating current that starts in the Arctic with a 
volume equal to the discharge of all of the rivers of the world in a 
second. Mr. Chairman, 2 million cubic meters per second, moving cold 
water of the ocean from the Arctic all the way down the Atlantic coast 
of the United States, the south Atlantic, into the Pacific and then 
circulating back up to the Arctic. That great ocean circulating current 
from time to time disappears. The world enters an ice age, and it 
occurs on regular currents of about 100,000 years.
  It also occurs with a tilt of the earth's axis a half a degree away 
further from the sun than it does now. That last occurrence made of the 
disappearance of the circulating current was followed by a warming 
period that ended with the great Ice Age, which itself ended over 
10,000 years ago and was followed by the lesser Ice Age, the period of 
roughly 1,300 to 1,400 in the modern era. And then about 750 years ago 
we experienced another lesser ice age known as the Younger Dryas.
  We are now in a period of extended warming. We are beyond those ice 
age periods and into a new cycle of climate. As the atmosphere has 
warmed and as the surface of the waters of the Pacific Ocean have 
warmed more than a centigrade degree since the beginning of this 
century, the ocean waters are expanding. As they warm, they expand, and 
so

[[Page 11952]]

is it happening with the Atlantic waters. And as those waters expand 
and as the atmosphere is warmer, it holds for every degree of 
temperature 6 percent more moisture. And with more moisture in the 
atmosphere, more of a collision of warm and cold forces, we are seeing 
these violent storms. Fifteen years ago, we did not pay more than $1 
billion a year in disaster assistance programs. Within the last 5 
years, we have expended over $5 billion a year, and last year with the 
private insurance and the public funds, expended over $100 billion 
responding to natural disasters. It is incontrovertible that serious 
things are happening in our climate. And what has changed is not the 
forces of nature, but man's application to them.
  The gentleman from Maryland said we have contributed the carbon into 
the atmosphere. There is more carbon in the atmosphere today than at 
any time in the last 420,000 years. That carbon causes warming. That is 
the conclusion of 500-plus scientists gathered in the U.N. in the year 
of the environment in a multi-volume report that was submitted.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot stick our heads in the sand and ignore these 
facts. We cannot ignore the relentless movement of forces in nature, 
the melting polar ice pack in the Arctic and the ice pack of Antarctica 
that are increasing the volume of the oceans by warming of the surface 
temperature of the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. They are causing 
warming in the atmosphere and more moisture in the atmosphere, more 
carbon in the atmosphere; and only we can change it, by slowing down 
the destruction of the tropical forests, increasing sustainable-yield 
forestry in the United States, and reducing our use of carbon. We ought 
to have that study, and we ought to have this debate. Five minutes is 
no serious time in which to do it.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to share with my colleagues a few facts about 
climate change that have not gotten much press. The main point is 
uncertainty. There is still a great deal that we do not know or do not 
well understand about our global climate. For every study that seems to 
tell us something, there is another that confounds the previous 
conclusions. Uncertainty is a normal and maybe important part of the 
scientific process, but it is a part that the media are not comfortable 
with and so rarely report on. To its credit, The New York Times ran a 
piece last week entitled, ``Both Sides Now: New Way That Clouds May 
Cool,'' which noted that science is uncertainty, and how that 
uncertainty can dramatically change climate models.
  Clouds have long been a source of uncertainty in climate studies. 
Certain gases generated by the burning of fossil fuels, such as carbon 
dioxide, are widely held to play a role in warming the planet by 
trapping heat. However, aerosols, also produced from fossil fuels, have 
been found to contribute to the cooling of the planet by affecting the 
development of clouds that reflect sunlight, and thus it reflects heat 
away from the planet.
  Now, before we pass legislation meant to curb global warming, we need 
to understand better which human activities affect those and other 
processes. It seems, and I would suggest, the most important point to 
take from the recent round of reports is that our climate is a very 
complex system that is not well understood. As chairman of our 
Subcommittee on Research of the Committee on Science, we have held 
several hearings on this subject; and it is almost universally agreed 
by those testifying before our committee that scientific evidence and 
knowledge is lacking.
  Our best intentions can very easily produce the wrong outcome. 
Fredrick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, 
did a piece for the Washington Times last week on this very point. Let 
me quote from that article entitled ``Beyond the Clouds of Fright.'' 
Quote: ``The science of climate change today does not call for rash 
action that could wreak havoc with economies worldwide and even cause 
worse damage to the environment over time.'' He also cautioned that 
``researchers shouldn't be pressured by politics or encouraged by 
publicity to find a particular answer. They should be given the space, 
the time, the funding and the support to seek and find the truth.''
  So in conclusion, I would like to urge my colleagues to resist the 
temptation to jump on the bandwagon of climate change before we better 
understand the science and better know the consequences of our actions. 
I understand the ranking member has a perfecting amendment that might 
help us, help guide us.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, modest uncertainty is not an excuse for major inaction. 
When the captain of the Titanic steamed out and just kept going 
straight at the same speed because he was not sure if there was an 
iceberg there, because he was uncertain if there was an iceberg there, 
that was a mistake. And this body, with the language in this bill, 
which now continues to ignore this problem of global climate change, is 
a major mistake.
  I am just going to ask my friends across the aisle to look at two 
things that happened today within a quarter mile of this building. 
Number one, The Washington Post, headline this morning: ``Penguins In 
Major Decline. Fifty percent of these stocks are disappearing in the 
Antarctic.''

                              {time}  1730

  Why? Because they have had a reduction of ice in the Antarctic, a 
death of the crill population that penguins rely on and a potential 
huge collapse in a couple of their populations.
  It happened today. I am just going to ask people across the aisle to 
not adopt the attitude of the ostrich and ignore these facts.
  Number two, right now, 200 yards from now, are two fuel-cell-driven 
cars, one manufactured by the Ford Company, that run on fuel cells and 
emit water instead of carbon dioxide in their emissions.
  We, and I mean we, have the potential if we get together to emphasize 
research in these new technologies, we are going to lead the world, 
instead of the laughingstock of the world, of the country that refuses 
to be anything but an ostrich on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask at some point that we work together 
to lead the world. We did not have to wait for the rest of the world to 
do a clean air bill. We did not have to wait for the rest of the world 
to do a clean water bill. We ought to lead the world on global climate 
change. That is the right approach.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the time we can do that on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief this time. In section 
331, it refers to a limitation in the use of funds in this legislation 
to implement in a broad way, in any kind of way, the Kyoto Protocol, 
which has never been ratified by the Senate of this Nation, nor by any 
of the other major signatories to the original Protocol for that 
matter.
  My amendment merely says that the limitation which would remain does 
not include activities related to the Protocol which are otherwise 
authorized by law, nor activities that are authorized by the United 
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is the treaty 
that was negotiated back in 1991 and 1992, and sent to the Senate for 
ratification by former President George Herbert Walker Bush, and was 
ratified by the Senate and has the full force of law.
  Mr. Chairman, it merely removes the limitation from otherwise-
authorized-by-law activities in this area. It is my intent to withdraw 
the amendment.
  Before I do withdraw my amendment, I know that we could probably 
generate a long discussion here, which

[[Page 11953]]

none of us really want, but I would ask the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers) if the gentleman would be willing to work with the 
groups that are obviously showing their interest in this and come up 
with something that might address these concerns in the conference that 
will come forward.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to consider it 
as time passes, but I was sort of hoping, can we have some more 
discussion of this?
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 332. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     pursue or adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport 
     sponsors to provide to the Federal Aviation Administration 
     without cost building construction, maintenance, utilities 
     and expenses, or space in airport sponsor-owned buildings for 
     services relating to air traffic control, air navigation or 
     weather reporting: Provided, That the prohibition of funds in 
     this section does not apply to negotiations between the 
     agency and airport sponsors to achieve agreement on ``below-
     market'' rates for these items or to grant assurances that 
     require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the 
     FAA for air traffic control facilities.
       Sec. 333. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     States may use funds provided in this Act under section 402 
     of title 23, United States Code, to produce and place highway 
     safety public service messages in television, radio, cinema, 
     and print media, and on the Internet in accordance with 
     guidance issued by the Secretary of Transportation: Provided, 
     That any State that uses funds for such public service 
     messages shall submit to the Secretary a report describing 
     and assessing the effectiveness of the messages.
       Sec. 334. Notwithstanding section 402 of the Department of 
     Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1982 
     (49 U.S.C. 10903 nt), Mohall Railroad, Inc. may abandon track 
     from milepost 5.25 near Granville, North Dakota, to milepost 
     35.0 at Lansford, North Dakota, and the track so abandoned 
     shall not be counted against the 350-mile limitation 
     contained in that section.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against all of 
section 334 beginning on page 55, line 6, and ending on line 13.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky concedes the point of 
order.
  The point of order is conceded and sustained under clause 2, rule 
XXI. The provision is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 335. Beginning in fiscal year 2002 and thereafter, the 
     Secretary of Transportation may use up to 1 percent of the 
     amounts made available to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5309 for 
     oversight activities under 49 U.S.C. 5327.
       Sec. 336. Amtrak is authorized to obtain services from the 
     Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator is 
     authorized to provide services to Amtrak, under sections 
     201(b) and 211(b) of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 481(b) and 491(b)) for fiscal 
     year 2002 and each fiscal year thereafter until the fiscal 
     year that Amtrak operates without Federal operating grant 
     funds appropriated for its benefit, as required by sections 
     24101(d) and 24104(a) of title 49, United States Code.
       Sec. 337. Item number 1348 in the table contained in 
     section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
     Century (112 Stat. 269) is amended by striking ``Extend West 
     Douglas Road'' and inserting ``Construct Gastineau Channel 
     Second Crossing to Douglas Island''.
       Sec. 338. None of the funds in this Act may be obligated 
     for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation to approve 
     assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds 
     appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act, except 
     for activities underway on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     unless such assessments or agreements have completed the 
     normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification.
       Sec. 339. For an airport project that the Administrator of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) determines will add 
     critical airport capacity to the national air transportation 
     system, the Administrator is authorized to accept funds from 
     an airport sponsor, including entitlement funds provided 
     under the ``Grants-in-Aid for Airports'' program, for the FAA 
     to hire additional staff or obtain the services of 
     consultants: Provided, That the Administrator is authorized 
     to accept and utilize such funds only for the purpose of 
     facilitating the timely processing, review, and completion of 
     environmental activities associated with such project.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against all of 
section 339 beginning on page 56, line 16, and ending on page 57, line 
2.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky concedes the point of 
order.
  The point of order is conceded and sustained under clause 2, rule 
XXI. The provision is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 340. Item 642 in the table contained in section 1602 
     of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 
     Stat. 298), relating to Washington, is amended by striking 
     ``construct passenger ferry facility to serve Southworth, 
     Seattle'' and inserting ``passenger only ferry to serve 
     Kitsap County-Seattle''.
       Sec. 341. Item 1793 in section 1602 of the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 298), relating to 
     Washington, is amended by striking ``Southworth Seattle 
     ferry'' and inserting ``passenger only ferry to serve Kitsap 
     County-Seattle''.
       Sec. 342. Item 576 in the table contained in section 1602 
     of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 
     Stat. 278) is amended by striking ``Bull Shoals Lake Ferry in 
     Taney County'' and inserting ``Construct the Missouri Center 
     for Advanced Highway Safety (MOCAHS)''.
       Sec. 343. The transit station operated by the Washington 
     Metropolitan Area Transit Authority located at Ronald Reagan 
     Washington National Airport, and known as the National 
     Airport Station, shall be known and designated as the 
     ``Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Station''. The 
     Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority shall modify 
     the signs at the transit station, and all maps, directories, 
     documents, and other records published by the Authority, to 
     reflect the redesignation.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment no. 5 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be made available to any person or 
     entity convicted of violating the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 
     10a-10c).

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say the worst thing 
about global warming would be a German transit system in the City of 
New York that focuses on the violations that occur in the Buy American 
Act. The language is straightforward.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers), who has produced a fine work product.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the Traficant amendment is a 
good one. We accept it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote in the affirmative.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure for the $250,000 for the Long Island City Links project 
and acknowledge the importance of this project and also to express my 
appreciation.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following list for the Record of 
developments in this growing economy:
  I am tremendously pleased that the House Transportation 
Appropriations bill includes $250 thousand dollars for the Long Island 
City

[[Page 11954]]

Links project, to improve transit connections and pedestrian paths in 
an area of New York City that is experiencing tremendous economic 
growth.
  These improvements are a vital part of our efforts to make Long 
Island City not only one of the best places to work in the region, but 
also a beautiful and livable residential neighborhood.
  Long Island City Links will immeasurably improve the quality of life 
for residents in the area by reducing traffic and increasing air 
quality and providing public parks and walkways.
  Long Island City, Mr. Chairman, is one of the fastest growing regions 
in New York City.
  Here are just a few of the recent developments in this growing 
economy:


                         business moves to LIC

  MetLife brings almost 1,000 jobs to northwest Queens--MetLife 
recently decided to relocate almost 1000 employees in about six months 
to the renovated, six-story Bridge Plaza North. This move is expected 
to attract more businesses to this area by drawing attention to the 
convenient 15-minute commute to midtown Manhattan. MetLife plans to add 
another 550 jobs in the city during the 20-year term of its lease.
  The FAA has plans to develop a new Regional Headquarters in the area.
  Construction is already underway for a new FDA laboratory.
  International Firms such as Citicorp and British Airways already have 
major operations in the borough as well as Chubb who opened a backup 
facility in the area for Wall Street brokerage and financial firms.
  Established Companies in the area, such as Eagle Electric, 
Continental Bakeries, and Schick Technologies, are continually growing 
and expanding.
  Recently welcomed retail chains include Home Depot, Tops Appliance 
City, Costco, Caldor, Kmart, Sears, the Disney Store, Barnes & Noble, 
Marshall's, Conway, Ethan Allan, Staples, Circuit City, and Bed, Bath & 
Beyond with a CompUSA already being planned for the near future.
  With this growth in business and the economy in Long Island City it 
is absolutely vital that we move forward with community enhancements 
like public parks, transportation enhancements, and quality of life 
improvements for all residents in the neighborhood.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Schiff:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds in this Act may be used for the 
     planning, design, development, or construction of the 
     California State Route 710 freeway extension project through 
     El Sereno, South Pasadena, and Pasadena, California.

  Mr. SCHIFF (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, this amendment precludes funding for a 
highway project in my district.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman 
Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and their staff for 
help on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes vote on the amendment which passed in 
prior years on a bipartisan voice vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  For the last 2 years, the Transportation appropriations bill has 
included a provision to prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds on 
the California State Route 710 freeway extension project in Southern 
California.
  My amendment would extend that ban for one additional year.
  The 4.5 mile freeway extension would cost more than $1.5 billion--
with 80 percent of the cost federally funded.
  In lieu of the 710 freeway extension, which would deliver speculative 
traffic benefits at a cost far too high to the communities I represent, 
I encourage the support of local surface traffic mitigation measures 
proposed by experts in the communities of Pasadena, South Pasadena and 
El Sereno.
  In addition to $10.3 million in state funds I secured from Caltrans 
for local congestion relief, Congress has set aside $46 million in 
federal funds for these measures that will significantly and 
expeditiously relieve congestion in the extension corridor in Pasadena, 
South Pasadena, El Sereno and Alhambra.
  I am also pleased to note that the Transportation bill at my request 
and others, includes more than 7 million in funding for the Los Angeles 
to Pasadena Blue Line, a light rail project that will bring congestion 
relief and clean air benefits to the entire region.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I thank the Chairman and 
Ranking Member for their support.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone seeking time on the amendment?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Sabo

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sabo:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     process applications by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers for 
     conditional or permanent authority to operate beyond the 
     United States municipalities and commercial zones adjacent to 
     the United States-Mexico border.

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, we had a long discussion on the rule today, 
and the amendment I had offered I requested be made in order. It was 
not made in order, and the rule was not changed, so we have to offer 
the amendment in a different form.
  This is a very simple amendment. I wish it could be more complicated, 
but because of the action of the Committee on Rules and the action in 
the House, I cannot offer a more complicated amendment.
  This one simply prohibits funding to process the applications of 
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers for either conditional or permanent 
authority to operate throughout the United States beyond the current 
20-mile commercial zone.
  Let me say that I thought the amendment that we had earlier clearly 
was NAFTA-compliant. This probably is not, because it is a total 
prohibition, but I know of no other way for us to deal with this issue 
on the floor. I think we should deal with it.
  Let me review where we are at this point. The Committee on Rules did 
not make our amendment in order. We heard a great deal about the money 
that we were going to make available for facilities and inspectors in 
this bill. A significant part of that money has been struck. Today I 
think close to $90 million for inspectors and facilities have been 
struck by points of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I was a strong supporter of the action of our Chair in 
putting that money in the bill. I thought it was the appropriate thing 
to do. I thought that was a significant step forward, but not far 
enough. I thought the best solution to a very troubling situation was 
both to do preinspection of the carriers, plus add to our capacity to 
inspect individual trucks.
  The reality is at this point in the bill, most of that money has 
disappeared, and I have no option to offer an amendment that calls for 
preinspection. I think the only way we can address this issue in the 
House, keep it alive for conference, indicate to the administration and 
to the Senate that we want to make sure that we do the utmost to 
protect safety, is to adopt this limitation which is strong and 
outright. It gives us the action from a point of strength of dealing 
with the issue of truck safety for all the trucks that are going to be 
coming here from Mexico as we move on in this process.
  Let me say as it relates to some of the money that was struck, the 
administration plans to do 18 months review. Let me simply suggest that 
even if that money had stayed in the bill, particularly the money for 
building new facilities, probably very little of that would have been 
spent within the next 18 months, because it will take a significant 
period of time to build facilities. Clearly that money would not have 
been spent by January 1 of this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of this amendment. It is clear. It is

[[Page 11955]]

straight to the point. It says that we are not going to permit these 
carriers to operate beyond the existing 20-mile commercial zone.
  Mr. Chairman, I fully understand that as this moves through the 
process, this will need to be revised, but it is the only option we 
have to deal with this important safety question for the American 
people.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let us understand where we are here. I did not vote for 
NAFTA. I opposed NAFTA, but it passed. It is now the law of the land. 
It is the treaty between our neighbors and us. This provision is in 
direct violation of a United States treaty with our neighbors.
  I am referring to a letter of June 12 from the Secretary of 
Transportation, who in essence says that this is a clear violation of 
Mexico's rights under NAFTA; that it would subject the United States to 
possible trade sanctions estimated to be valued at over $1 billion 
annually that this would expose us to.
  The majority of my colleagues in this body voted for NAFTA. It 
passed. NAFTA says we are going to open the borders up to Mexico and to 
Canada.

                              {time}  1745

  This President says January of next year is when we do it. This 
amendment would prohibit motor carriers from Mexico to enter the United 
States. Period. You cannot do that. You are in violation of a treaty; 
in violation of the law; in violation of the majority that passed the 
treaty through this body.
  Now, is it worthwhile to do this type of thing? Look, the Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration, even as we speak, is taking public 
comments from anybody who wants to comment, including Members of 
Congress, about what kind of a procedure we should have to check 
Mexican trucks for safety as they come into the country. The experts 
are working on the rule even as we speak. Should we not let them finish 
their work before we, who are not experts on trucking or safety, tell 
the experts what they should or should not do?
  Give them a chance. If we do not like what they have come up with 
this fall, we can change the rule and make it effective. But for 
goodness sakes, give the experts the chance to do their work. They are 
making the rule right now. Make comments to the rulemaking body, not to 
the Congress. We can deal with this at a later time.
  The administration has a plan. The DOT will be going to Mexico. For 
those carriers in Mexico who want to run trucks into this country, 
those carriers will be audited for safety, for their record, for 
training, for all the things that go into whether or not a safe 
operation of the truck could be made in the United States by that 
Mexican carrier.
  If they pass that test, they would be given a temporary permit to 
drive. In the meantime, we will be inspecting the dickens out of the 
trucks crossing the border.
  If at the end of 18 months that carrier has no record problems, all 
has gone smoothly, then and only then would they be given, not a 
conditional permit, but a permanent permit. I think it is a responsible 
approach. There is money in the bill for that approach.
  The administration is proceeding. The rulemaking is taking place. Let 
us not interrupt what they are doing. But please do not vote in this 
Congress an amendment on to this bill that would be a direct violation 
of a treaty of the United States of America. Please reject this 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we are being told that this amendment violates NAFTA. 
That is like the old song that we hear so many times about the person 
killing both of his parents and then throwing himself on the mercy of 
the court because he is an orphan.
  What the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) tried to do is to bring 
to this House an amendment that will prevent Americans from dying by 
seeing to it that we have an inspection process and a review process 
before, not after, dangerous trucks hit the highway.
  I want to remind my colleagues NAFTA is a trade agreement. It is not 
a suicide pact. Let me repeat that: NAFTA is a trade agreement; it is 
not a suicide pact. We are not required to allow unsafe trucks on 
American highways in order to satisfy some pencil-happy bureaucrat 
dealing with NAFTA.
  This amendment has no choice but to, for the moment, cut off all 
Mexican trucks on American highways because the majority party insisted 
that that was the only option that could be put before this body. So 
they blocked the effort that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) 
tried to bring to this House, and which would have been fully 
consistent with NAFTA. That effort would have said you cannot have 
those trucks running over American highways until we have the proper 
review process in place to make certain ahead of time that safety 
standards are being met.
  If this amendment technically would become a violation of NAFTA, it 
is because the majority has forced the House into a position where it 
can consider no amendment except that kind of an amendment.
  Everybody on this floor knows, if you want to cut through the bull 
gravy at the end of the day, this amendment can be fully tweaked in 
conference so that it is fully consistent with NAFTA and protects the 
American trucker.
  The rationale against this amendment keeps changing. We were told 
earlier in the day, oh, you have to block the Sabo amendment under 
House rules because the Sabo amendment was not passed by the full 
Committee on Appropriations. Many a time, many a time the Committee on 
Appropriations has chosen not to follow that logic.
  We are also told, oh, we do not have to do this. We do not have to 
protect American motorists this way because we have got all this money 
in the bill for these new inspectors.
  Well, let me remind my colleagues that money is now gone. It was 
knocked out on a point of order. So the $56 million for infrastructure 
improvements at the border, the $14 million for added inspections at 
the border, the $18 million for the State supplements for States around 
the border, all that money is gone.
  So your excuse is gone. You have no added protection for American 
drivers at this point. You know what the problems are. There is no 
effective oversight. There is no effective oversight on Mexican motor 
carriers today. There are no motor carrier hours-of-service regulations 
in effect in Mexico. There is no way to check the driving history of 
Mexican motor carrier drivers.
  In testimony last year, the Department of Transportation Inspector 
General said this: ``I do not think there is any reasonable person who 
can say that the border is safe when you have an out-of-service rate 
for safety reasons in the neighborhood of 40 to 50 percent.''
  Now, the majority blocked the Sabo amendment that would have allowed 
us to deal with this issue the way it needed to be dealt with. Now 
because they blocked us from offering the right amendment, they are 
blaming us because the language of this amendment is not pluperfect.
  Well, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) is a very smart man. 
He can easily fix it in conference. We have heard this excuse time and 
time again. Can fix it in conference. Can fix it in conference. Well, 
this is one time we are going to say that. We have full confidence in 
the ability of the gentleman from Kentucky to fix this in conference.
  But today, we have only one option if we want to protect American 
motorists.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the only option we have is to adopt this 
amendment, because this is the only procedural alternative left to us 
by a rule that prevented us from offering the

[[Page 11956]]

amendment that should have been offered on this subject. So do not 
blame us for the shortcomings which the majority itself has caused.
  I would simply make one other point. We have a choice. We can either 
insist on having an inspection regimen and a review regimen in place 
before these trucks are put on the highways, or we can do what the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) says and wait until they are on 
the highways and then see what happens.
  Only one difference between the approaches. There are people who will 
die under the second approach who will not under the first. It is just 
that simple.
  So you have got a very clear choice. If you want to do anything at 
all to protect the safety of American motorists on the highways on this 
issue, you will vote for the Sabo amendment; and you will give the 
committee the opportunity to do what it has done thousands of times 
before, which is to tweak the language in conference so that it can 
satisfy the procedural niceties of people in this House who eight times 
out of 10 run a railroad truck over legitimate procedure.
  You hide behind procedure when it suits your purpose, and you trample 
fair procedure the rest of the time. We are not fooled by that. 
American drivers are not going to be fooled by that. The only people 
you might be fooling are yourselves.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I have listened 
with interest to this debate. I do rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  I think that sometimes the rules of the House work to help to show 
the real true intent of what is involved here. I have said all along in 
the debate in committee and before on this, in the years that it has 
been before, that this is really an issue about trying to block Mexican 
trucks from the United States highways, that there are interest groups 
here in the United States that do not want under any circumstances to 
have Mexican trucks driving on our highways.
  Well, today we see that with this amendment. Granted, as the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, it is the only amendment that 
can be offered or something like this amendment can be offered under 
the rules. With this amendment, it is very clear. Block all trucks from 
coming into the United States. The heck with an inspection procedure. 
The heck with anything else. Block all trucks.
  I might add, somehow within only in his State, 20 miles in my State 
is okay under this amendment, but in other areas, it is not okay. So 
somehow it is okay for us not to have safe trucks since he is worried 
about safe trucks.
  So I think it is very clear what we are talking about here. We are 
talking about blocking trucks from coming in the United States. Let us 
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. 
The Mexican Trucking Association does not want American trucks coming 
down into Mexico. So they join you in this. They want to make sure 
there are not trucks in the United States to have an opportunity to 
compete there.
  If we get this, we get reciprocity; and we have an opportunity to 
have Mexican trucks to go down there. There are Mexican truck 
associations that do not want us. So there are joint interest groups on 
both sides that do not want this.
  But let us review the facts here. We adopted NAFTA. It was adopted in 
this body at a time in fact when the other party controlled this House. 
It is the law of the land that took effect on January 1, 1994. It 
stipulated that, by January 1, 2000, that is 18 months ago, we would 
allow trucks to cross at all points of the border into the United 
States. Here we are at June 25, and it still has not occurred.
  Mexico filed a complaint against us under the terms of NAFTA for not 
meeting the deadline; and in February of this year, the panel concluded 
that the U.S. was indeed in breach of its NAFTA obligations.
  The sanctions that are being talked about could be as much as $1 
billion a year. That is $1 billion on American industry. That is $1 
billion for American consumers that they are going to pay more.

                              {time}  1800

  I say let us stop treating our Mexican neighbors as though they are 
some kind of people that we should not want to do business with.
  This amendment has nothing to do, by the way, with trucks coming from 
Canada, our other NAFTA partner. Oh no, just the trucks from Mexico 
somehow are suspect. So I think we should be building bridges, not 
barriers to our neighbors from the south.
  Let us be clear about this. This issue is not about the safety of the 
truck, it is about paperwork. The issue as was presented earlier by the 
gentleman from Minnesota was about paperwork. Of course we want to be 
sure that all trucks traveling on our highways are safe, but the States 
along the border, for several years now, have said they are prepared to 
do that. How come the States that have the responsibility for enforcing 
this, along with the Department of Transportation, are prepared to do 
this? We have the regimen in place to check the paperwork as they come 
across the border, to look at the logs, to look at all these things, to 
make sure the bonds are there, the licenses are there, the insurance is 
there, and to do the actual physical inspection of the truck. Because 
that is after all what we are about, is it not? We want to make sure 
these trucks are actually safe. So the most important aspect of truck 
safety is the observation of the driver and the actual inspection of 
the truck at the border and along the highway.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin said people will die. Yes, people have 
died in my district. Not very long ago there was a truck driver who was 
using amphetamines, had not slept for 18 hours, crashed into a car 
parked along the side of the road and destroyed all the occupants of an 
entire family because he was violating rules and the law in the United 
States. We need to inspect for that. We need to have adequate 
inspection to make sure it is safe in this country.
  The trucks coming across the border are all going to be subject to 
inspection, and the percentage of them that are actually going to be 
physically inspected is going to be much much higher than currently are 
inspected traveling on our highways, American trucks traveling on our 
highways. So the paperwork is not the issue. If all my colleague wants 
to do is check the paperwork, the paperwork can be checked when the 
truck is down in Guadalajara, but that does not tell us whether the 
truck is safe.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kolbe was 
allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say this, and then I really will 
yield to the gentleman. This really is not about paperwork, in my 
opinion. It is really about whether or not trucks are going to be 
allowed to travel on our highways from Mexico.
  I say we should treat people equally. In a study, by the way, in 
California, of trucks coming across the border into that border zone, 
shows they meet the standards on an equal basis with U.S. trucks. So 
there is no real difference that is there. So I say we need to treat 
our neighbors to the south as partners.
  Those of us who live along the border understand what this 
partnership is all about and how important it is economically and 
politically to the United States, and I believe that we can make this 
work. It is clear the Department of Transportation is prepared to do 
it, the States are prepared to do it, and I would urge that we defeat 
this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and let 
me say he is my good friend, but I would like to read something to him 
and then ask him a question.

[[Page 11957]]

  The gentleman indicated that he thought that in this case the rules 
had been used to bring out the true intent of the amendment before this 
body, implying that the true intent was to have a flat shutoff of 
Mexican trucks. I flatly dispute that, and I want to read something 
then ask the gentleman a question.
  This is the text of the original Sabo amendment which the majority 
blocked from consideration in the House today. It reads as follows: 
``No funding limited in this Act for the review or processing of 
applications by Mexican motor carriers for conditional authority to 
operate beyond U.S. municipalities and commercial zones on the U.S.-
Mexico border may be obligated unless the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration has adopted and implemented as part of its review 
procedures under 49 U.S.C. 13902 a requirement that each Mexican motor 
carrier seeking authority to operate beyond U.S. municipalities and 
commercial zones on the U.S.-Mexico border undergo a new entrant safety 
compliance review consistent with the safety fitness evaluation 
procedures set forth in 49 CFR Part 385 and receive a minimum rating of 
satisfactory thereunder before being granted such conditional operating 
authority.''
  Now, that language is pretty clear. It does not try to shut off 
Mexican trucks. It says they cannot operate here until they have met 
these standards. Does not the language of the original amendment in 
fact indicate what the intention of the original amendment was?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman asking the question, and I understand what the amendment did 
do and that this amendment now, as it is offered, is somewhat 
different. But I believe that the amendment that was crafted before and 
as offered has the effect of actually stopping any trucks from coming 
into the United States. That is the intent of it, I believe, to make 
sure they do not get into the United States.
  So now that amendment not having been made in order under the rules, 
I would say to my good friend from Wisconsin, I think we are seeing the 
true intent here. It is interest groups. Look at the people that are 
supporting this amendment. Look at the people asking for this. It is 
groups that do not want trucks coming into the United States, period.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will again yield. Let me 
simply say that the gentleman is forgetting one thing. What the Sabo 
amendment attempted to do is to say that there would be no Mexican 
trucks on these roads until the safety requirements were met as 
outlined in the amendment.
  I think it is blatantly ridiculous for anyone to assert that the 
intention of a proposal is something other than that which is quite 
clearly stated in the proposal. It was the majority that blocked us 
from being able to vote on this proposal.
  Mr. KOLBE. Again reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, more than 2 years 
ago, down at the border, I went over the whole procedures with the 
Arizona Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of 
Transportation. Everybody was prepared at that time to begin 
implementing this. So there is no question. We are prepared to inspect. 
We are prepared to look at these trucks. We are prepared to make sure 
they are safe. We are prepared to make sure they have their license, 
their insurance, the bonding that is required, and to do the physical 
inspection of the truck.
  As I pointed out, a far greater percentage of them will be inspected 
than any of the trucks traveling on our highways. The gentleman must 
acknowledge that there are accidents occurring on our highways because 
of trucks not properly inspected or, more likely, because the drivers 
are not following the rules. In fact, there is a very interesting study 
I just saw the other day that states that 73 percent, I believe was the 
figure, of all accidents in trucks occur when there is a passenger in 
the vehicle as opposed to about 23 percent when there is not a 
passenger. So passengers' distractions have more to do with it 
apparently than anything else.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman talks about who supports this 
amendment, or my earlier amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Sabo, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kolbe was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. As I was saying, I have here a letter from the Commercial 
Vehicle Safety Alliance, which is an association of State, provincial, 
and Federal officials responsible for the administration and 
enforcement of motor carrier safety laws. They were writing to me to 
express their strong support for the amendment that I had before the 
Committee on Rules. They are hardly a self-interest group. Their 
interest is in enforcing the laws that we pass.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman is saying, 
but I would say to the gentleman in response that it is very clear to 
me that we have the ability to do this, we have the wherewithal to do 
it, we have the desire on the part of both Federal and State 
authorities to do this checking, and they are capable of doing this.
  Why is this amendment not including Canada? Why are we only including 
Mexico under this? Canada is a NAFTA partner. Why do we discriminate 
against the one? That is what makes this violative of NAFTA.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield so we can answer 
that?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin if I have time 
here.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it is very simple.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has 
again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kolbe was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. The record for Canadian carriers shows that their highway 
safety record is virtually every bit as good as ours. The record with 
respect to the Mexican drivers in question demonstrates quite the 
opposite.
  Mr. KOLBE. And I would say to the gentleman that fair is fair. If we 
are going to treat people fairly, we need to treat both sides in 
exactly the same way. With the kind of inspection regimen we are 
talking about installing here, we should have the same kinds of 
inspections for trucks coming from Mexico as we are talking about 
trucks that travel from Canada. Fair is fair. Treat all sides fairly 
here. That is all that I am saying that we should do.
  Why are we singling out our neighbors to the south? Why are we 
singling out Mexico to say we do not trust you, we do not think your 
trucks are safe, we do not think you can comply with NAFTA? I think 
that is wrong and it sends the wrong signal to our partner, the wrong 
signal to NAFTA and the rest of the world, that we are going to single 
out this Latin American country, this neighbor to the south of us, to 
say that we do not believe your trucks can travel here in the United 
States. I think it is just plain wrong.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to this amendment.
  Here we go again, attacking Mexico, singling out Mexico for some 
reason that I cannot understand. What a farce, for anyone to argue that 
these trucks coming in from Mexico would not be forced to comply with 
the same standards as American trucks on our highways. This is simply a 
ploy, a naked ploy now, because it is not masked as an earlier 
amendment was trying to be masked as some kind of effort that is 
actually behind a safety issue. This is just a clear effort to try to 
stop these trucks from coming in all together.

[[Page 11958]]

  Let me also say to many of my colleagues who are supporting this 
amendment, this is an attack on many border communities who have seen 
an incredible economic boom as a result of free trade over the last 20 
years. To support this amendment stops the progress, stops the jobs 
from being created in many of the communities close to the border. I do 
represent almost 800 miles of the Texas-Mexico border and have seen 
incredible opportunities come to these neighborhoods because of free 
trade. These people want more opportunity that would come with allowing 
these trucks to drive through these communities. And we know that they 
would not be held to any less a standard than an American truck driving 
through the community.
  So let us look at this for what it is, it is a discriminatory attack 
against Mexico. It has already been pointed out that no one else is 
being forced to comply with this standard. No one else would fall under 
this amendment. Our friends from Canada would not fall under this 
amendment. This is simply another effort to discriminate against our 
friends in Mexico who have been good trading partners and have helped 
create thousands of new jobs in this country. I urge defeat of this 
amendment for those reasons.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to attempt to bring some rationality to this 
debate and historical perspective. The issue is not, as previous 
speakers have tried to make it, no Mexican trucks in the U.S. or 
sinister special interest forces trying to keep Mexican trucks from 
entering the United States. That is not the issue. The issue is safe 
trucks, safe U.S. trucks, safe trucks from Canada, and safe trucks from 
Mexico.
  In 1982, the then Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
brought to the House legislation to prohibit trucks from Canada and 
Mexico entering the United States unless the President of the United 
States would issue a finding lifting that legislatively imposed 
moratorium on truck entry into the United States. That was 1982. In 
1984, President Reagan lifted the moratorium with respect to trucks 
from Canada but did not lift it with respect to trucks from Mexico. In 
1986, 1988 the President again lifted the moratorium on Canadian trucks 
but not on Mexican trucks because of a finding by the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Office that those trucks did not meet U.S. safety 
standards.
  President Bush, the first, in 1990 and again in 1992 lifted the 
moratorium on Canadian trucks but not on Mexican trucks simply because 
Canadian trucks met U.S. safety standards and Mexican trucks did not. 
In fact, as the gentleman from Wisconsin cited a moment ago, the out-
of-service rate for Canadian trucks is lower than that of trucks in the 
United States. Seventeen percent of Canadian trucks are found by their 
and our inspection service to be out of compliance with safety 
standards, while 24 percent of U.S. trucks are found to be out of 
compliance and 36 percent of Mexican trucks. Mexican trucks, therefore, 
have a 50 percent higher out of service rating than do trucks in the 
United States, and more than twice as much as Canadians.
  Well, my colleagues cannot make a rational argument that this is an 
anti-Mexico provision that we are offering on the floor. It is simply a 
safety issue, not a cross-border issue. And what we are asking for is 
not, as one speaker indicated, a lot of paperwork. No, no. I know 
safety from the aviation standpoint, from the rail standpoint, and I 
have looked at it for many, many years from the surface transportation 
standpoint, trucking issues as well. We do not just look for this or 
that truck that is out of compliance, we are looking for a system of 
safety, for a system, a structure of compliance.

                              {time}  1815

  That is why we want to have an overall review of the Mexican safety 
system. Canada clearly complies; Mexico does not.
  The dispute resolution mechanism, the arbitration panel that reviewed 
this issue found ``it may not be unreasonable for a NAFTA party to 
conclude that to ensure compliance with its own local standards by 
service providers from another NAFTA country, it may be necessary to 
implement different procedures with respect to such service providers. 
Thus, to the extent that the inspection and licensing requirements for 
Mexican trucks and drivers wishing to operate in the United States may 
not be like those in place in the United States, different methods of 
ensuring compliance with U.S. regulatory regime may be justified. In 
order to justify its own legitimate safety concerns, if the United 
States decides to impose requirements on Mexican carriers that differ 
from those imposed on United States or Canadian carriers, then any such 
decision must be made in good faith with respect to a legitimate safety 
concern and implement different requirements that fully conform with 
all relevant NAFTA provisions.''
  The Sabo amendment, which would have been offered, had it not been 
struck, would have met those tests.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Oberstar was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, deprived of an opportunity to offer that 
amendment, we are reduced to this rather stringent approach. As the 
gentleman from Wisconsin said earlier, it is an issue that can be 
tapered in conference and resolved perhaps even to meet the original 
Sabo-Ney language.
  As for the dire warnings that ipso facto this language will put us in 
violation of NAFTA, there is a dispute resolution mechanism, an 
arbitration panel that can resolve such disputes and has shown its 
ability to do so. We ought to be in the mode of protecting life and 
addressing the life issues that are at stake.
  Every year trucks kill 5,000 people in the United States. Our trucks. 
Trucks that are 50 percent less safe coming in from another country 
should not be allowed in the United States until a regime is in place 
to screen them out and to ensure that all those that do enter under the 
NAFTA will be in compliance with our safety rules. The Sabo amendment 
provides that opportunity.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sabo amendment. I, like 
my colleagues, regret that the Sabo-Ney amendment was not made in 
order. However, I do not regret being in strong support of this 
amendment, because I believe it is very important for this House to 
have a clear vote on this issue.
  This issue in my view is not about NAFTA; it is about truck safety 
and whether we can properly inspect the trucks that are entering the 
United States. Not too long ago, the Subcommittee on Highways and 
Transit had a site visit to San Diego and Laredo. At San Diego, we 
found a very good permanent inspection station. That inspection station 
looks at all of the trucks and issues a permit that is good for 90 
days. If any truck tries to enter the United States and does not have a 
certificate, it is pulled aside and inspected. We have found that their 
out-of-service rate is similar to the trucks in the whole of the United 
States of America, about 24 percent. Too high in my view, but similar 
to the rest of the country.
  When we went to Laredo, Texas, we found a system that virtually does 
not exist. There is no permanent inspection station in Texas. I do not 
believe there is one outside of California. The results are pretty 
obvious. The gentleman from the Texas Department of Public Safety, 
Major Clayton, had suggested to us that a truck that is not inspected 
will be neglected. We were there on a Sunday, and we asked what the 
experience was that day. We were informed that they looked at seven or 
eight trucks, and took five of those trucks out of service.
  I asked, What was the problem with those trucks? Were they minor 
little details like a light that does not work or turn signals or 
something of that sort?
  He said, No, Congressman, these are brakes that are failing, leaking 
fuel

[[Page 11959]]

lines, cracks in the undercarriage, bald tires.
  Mr. Chairman, these are the vehicles that are going to be allowed 
come January 1 to enter the interior of the United States. This is not 
against NAFTA. If we want to continue allowing trucks to come into the 
border States, where they are traveling at presumably a very low mile-
per-hour rate, if these trucks are allowed into the interior of the 
United States to travel anywhere in the United States of America with 
brakes that are failing, leaking fuel lines, cracks in undercarriage, 
bald tires, there are going to be major accidents in our country.
  Mr. Chairman, what happens to NAFTA then? What will be the outcry in 
our country if a truck that was not inspected and had these kinds of 
violations causes a serious accident? I think that will cause a whole 
lot more harm to NAFTA than our insisting that Mexican trucks be 
inspected and inspected properly. California has done a pretty good 
job. They have set a model for us. They have put up the funds and have 
permanent inspection stations. There are no other permanent inspection 
stations along the border, and trucks that are unsafe will be entering 
our country. I strongly support the Sabo amendment.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words and see if we might inquire how many people want to speak on both 
sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, we have two additional requests for time on 
our side. And how many on the gentleman's side?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, we have one additional speaker.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that there be 30 
minutes of debate, 15 minutes allocated to each side, controlled by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. On this amendment and all amendments thereto?
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my constituents, I thank the 
gentleman from Minnesota for his amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent the southern half of San Diego, California, 
a district which borders Mexico and which has all of the border 
crossings for California, at least the great majority. Thirty-five to 
40 percent of all truck traffic between Mexico and the United States 
crosses my district, so I believe we have some sort of experience and 
expertise with regard to this matter.
  The distinguished chairman of the subcommittee suggested that we 
ought to wait for experts to decide this question. Mr. Chairman, my 
constituents are experts. My constituents will tell the gentleman what 
it is like to be in an accident with a Mexican truck whose brakes have 
failed; in an accident where the driver did not have adequate 
insurance; in an accident where the truck driver was a teenager or who 
had just driven for 20 hours straight. My constituents are the experts 
on what happens when we do not have adequate inspection for the trucks 
to enter into the United States.
  And it is clear we do not have an adequate inspection system. The 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) talked about all of the States are 
ready to do this. I do not see any evidence that they are. If they are, 
why do they not do this? Twelve thousand trucks are crossing every day. 
We heard from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) talking 
about the state-of-the-art facility in San Diego where the California 
Highway Patrol inspects trucks. They are doing this, by the way, with 
their own funds, no Federal support. There is no Federal support for 
State inspections, and all States can do what they want. That does not 
strike me as a way to assure U.S. citizens of truck safety.
  But the California Highway Patrol has taken on that responsibility, 
has paid for it, and does good inspections on the trucks they inspect. 
We think they inspect roughly 2 percent of the trucks that cross the 
border, and that inspection only deals with the safety of the chassis 
itself. Very little inspection is done or can be done about insurance. 
Papers are exchanged, but there is no standard system. There is no way 
to check those papers.
  The driver's license may be asked for and the logs may be asked for, 
but there is no uniformity of those papers. There is no check or way to 
check on the accuracy of that data. The driver's license may or may not 
be a legitimate driver's license. Logs are not required to be kept by 
Mexican drivers, so we do not know how long the driver has driven. We 
do not know the safety record of that driver. There is no way to hook 
up the computer systems between our two nations. And even if there was, 
the Mexican systems do not yet meet the standards that we would expect 
in a DMV of any State in our union.
  So even though the California Highway Patrol is state of the art, it 
is only inspecting a few percent of trucks, and it can only inspect for 
a few percent of what we would normally require to be inspected. And we 
are light years ahead of the other States that border Mexico. There is 
no such permanent facility in Arizona or Texas or New Mexico, and there 
are no Federal funds to set up these, and there are no standards by 
which they ought to operate, and there is no agreement on the kind of 
inspections that ought to be done in those States.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) mentioned that the 
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee on Transportation 
and the Infrastructure with our chairman was at various border 
crossings along the southern border. We were in Laredo, Texas, where 
there, and in the environs, most of the trucks apparently cross the 
border. They have not decided what kind of inspections ought to take 
place. The local border community and its mayor are very adamant about 
one way of doing it. The Texas Department of Transportation is equally 
adamant about another way of doing it.
  Not only do they not have the money to do it either way, but it is 
going to be years before they decide how to do it. So we are years away 
from having an adequate inspection system. We need the Sabo amendment 
in order to protect our communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand behind the Sabo amendment and truck safety.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by my colleagues earlier that we were not allowed to have an 
opportunity to dialogue on.
  I represent 13 counties in south Texas, two of which are along the 
Texas-Mexican border and part of the commercial zone already accessible 
to Mexican trucks. A number of the other counties contain I-35, a 
principal trade corridor for truck traffic from Mexico.
  I recognize the importance and value of expanding trade with Mexico. 
We need to build upon the trade relationships with Mexico and Canada. I 
also recognize that the dramatic growth in truck traffic comes with a 
price. I know from my constituents that that price is often paid on the 
ground in those counties as we move forward.
  The issue is not whether we should have more trade, rather, the 
challenge is how to protect the public while increasing trade. One 
should not be pitted against the other. We should just use our common 
sense. Road maintenance, border infrastructure improvements and border 
inspection in general have been the responsibility of the counties 
along the border, some of which are the poorest counties in the Nation. 
Increased truck traffic without increased inspections is a recipe for 
disaster.

[[Page 11960]]

  Creating a special 18-month exemption for Mexican trucks in south 
Texas and San Antonio is not the appropriate way to go and is not the 
way that we should be doing business. It is a price we should not be 
asked to pay, it is a risk that we need not take, if we adopt a 
sensible inspection policy and then pay for it. We need to make sure 
that those trucks are inspected just like any other truck.
  Nearly 70 percent of Mexican truck freight traffic enters the United 
States through Texas, which experienced 2.8 million truck crossings 
last year. The volume of truck is expected to increase by 85 percent. 
As of now, we do not have the ability to inspect and regulate these 
trucks. A total of 1 percent of the trucks that are crossing into Texas 
are now being inspected. Of those inspected, the out-of-service rate is 
40 percent, nearly twice the national average for U.S. trucks. We will 
make the problem worse if we do not insist on inspections for Mexican 
trucks.
  We must insist that Mexican trucks and companies meet the same safety 
and inspection requirements as U.S. trucks. We are not asking for 
anything special. We want to make sure that they also be able to go 
through the same guidelines. We are not anticompetitive, and we are not 
anti-Mexican. What we want to make sure is that those trucks get 
treated in the same way. They should be inspected in the same manner.
  All we are asking is that Mexican carriers be subject to on-site 
inspections prior to being granted operating authority and permitted to 
travel throughout the United States. Why should we have to wait 18 
months for that? When it comes to public safety, should we not be more 
sure? Mexico, which has no standard apparatus in place, cannot now 
certify the safety of its trucks, especially its long-haul fleet, or 
enforce a border safety inspection program of its own.
  We have made modest progress in harmonizing motor carrier safety 
processes between our two countries. Nevertheless, the Department of 
Transportation's inspector general recently confirmed that serious 
discrepancies persist. Mexican trucks tend to be older, heavier and 
more likely to transport unmarked toxic or hazardous material. Mexico 
has not yet developed hours of service requirements for commercial 
drivers. Mexico does not have a laboratory certified to U.S. standards 
to perform drug testing. Mexico does not have a roadside inspection 
program.
  On our side, in Texas alone, I sent a letter to then Governor Bush 
when he was there almost 4 years ago. At that time we had 17 workers 
part time doing the inspections. Now we have 37 part-time people, yet 
we have 70 percent of the traffic. Texas was supposed to hire 171 new 
commercial vehicle inspectors. They did not. They did not get the 
resources. The bottom line is in the existing situation, the State of 
Texas has not put the resources where they should be. According to the 
State legislative officials that we just talked to a couple of days 
ago, they received no additional money for this purpose because of 
budgetary shortfalls that the past Governor put the whole State into.
  I ask Members to really look at this seriously and to make sure that 
we treat Mexican trucks in the same way that we treat our U.S. trucks.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I hesitated to come running back, but when I 
started hearing many of the things that were offered up by the other 
side, I decided perhaps I should come back and plead for more trucks, 
more trucks to come here maybe and haul off an awful lot of stuff that 
has gathered in the well during this debate, because as I see it, Mr. 
Chairman, in Idaho we have got a saying, and the saying is basically 
this: If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is probably 
a duck.
  This is the second duck that they have had here today. This is no 
different than their first effort to stop the free flow of traffic 
across our southern border. This is no different than the effort that 
was made much, much earlier.
  But there are a few things that I would like to clear up. Earlier one 
of our side was questioned as to whether or not, did the majority not 
just block an effort, an amendment to change this, to make this right? 
The majority did not block that amendment. Strict adherence to the 
House rules that we have all agreed upon about amending appropriation 
bills is what killed that bill. We made you obey those rules, and in 
that process the amendment rightfully died.
  Why, Mr. Chairman, is this here today? Why have we not since 1994 
offered time after time after time similar amendments that could have 
begun the certification process, that could have perfected the safety 
on the highways and could have gotten this a long way toward 
accomplishment of what we are asking to do today? I suspect the reason 
for that is because from 1994 until last year, until this last January, 
we did not enjoy a trade representative and a USTR that was prepared to 
have equal trade on both sides of the border and equal treatment on 
both sides of the border as we do today and as we can expect today.
  Perhaps I should have offered an amendment, too, to go along with 
this thinly veiled safety effort; that is, that only trucks that are 
made in Idaho can be run on the highways, so that I could have closed 
my market, so that I could have enjoyed a monopoly myself.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1997, the State of Idaho petitioned the USTR to stop 
an unfair trade practice on our northern border, our border with 
Canada. We got no justification. We got no satisfaction. The result was 
finally our Governor said, all right, if we cannot get the United 
States Government to do something, perhaps we States ought to unite and 
do something. And so the northern tier of States did unite. We all put 
our police to work, our highway patrol to work and our port of entries 
to work.
  The result was, and we heard from the ranking member the statistics 
about how many unsafe trucks there were. I can tell my colleagues that 
at that time we found 57 percent of the trucks that we put through our 
safety efforts on our border with Canada, almost 57 percent did not 
meet the standards in the State of Idaho, and so, therefore, we could 
halt them at the border and reject them because they did not meet our 
safety standards. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that you can do just about 
anything that you want to with statistics.
  But let me just say, this is not unusual for the United States to do 
this. We have airlines that cross borders. We have railroads that cross 
borders. We have no problem with the safety regulations and the equal 
treatment of both sides. The same thing with our water traffic. And so 
with all the foreign registry that we have, whether it is on airlines 
or boats or railroads, we still find that we can have that traffic, and 
I think that we could use that example, the same thing, on our 
highways.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is time that we recognize that we need to be 
good neighbors, we need to be fair neighbors and not be picking on 
those people which we assume are not prepared to meet the standards 
that we have in the United States. I think it is time to be fair to all 
sides. I certainly have sat in awe many times and listened to speeches 
from the other side about treating people equally and being fair. This 
is your chance to walk the walk instead of just talking the talk.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The previous speaker in the well talked about this being a thinly 
veiled safety amendment. It is not thinly veiled. This is all about 
safety. Plain and simple that is what we are talking about, the safety 
of the driving American public on U.S. highways paid for with taxpayer 
dollars, and they can expect a little bit of protection from their 
Federal Government. I think. I hope.

[[Page 11961]]

  We do inspect U.S. trucks. We do pull them off the roads when they 
are unsafe. We do require drug and alcohol testing. I went through that 
debate here on the floor of the House, and I supported that. We do 
require log books. We do require restrictions on duty time. And we 
enforce those laws. For the most part those laws do not exist in 
Mexico, and where they do exist, they are not enforced.
  Now, no one has contested that fact. They are saying, oh, that we 
just do not want to be good neighbors. We want to be good neighbors, 
but we do not want to be good neighbors with people who are endangering 
the lives of the traveling public.
  My district has I-5 running right through the heart of it, and that 
is where those trucks are going. Now, the gentleman from Texas got up 
earlier and said, ``My people have done really well. I have such a long 
border with Mexico, and we have got so many jobs out of this, and you 
want to hurt that.'' No, actually he is arguing to hurt them, because 
if this amendment does not pass, those trucks are going to steam right 
through his district. Right now all those trucks have to stop in his 
district, and they have to reload onto safe American trucks. But when 
this goes into effect, those trucks are going right through his 
district and right up to mine. They are not going to stop. In fact, he 
is going to lose many jobs in his district.
  I am a bit perplexed by the arguments on the other side of the aisle. 
For the most part they have been arguing our side, but in a knee-jerk 
way at the end they are going to come to a conclusion that we have just 
got to go ahead, that this is about NAFTA and about free trade.
  We are having huge trade with Mexico, a huge and growing trade 
deficit with Mexico under NAFTA, although they promised us surpluses. 
That is not to be debated here today. That would not be impeded one wit 
by this amendment. But what would happen is these trucks that we know 
are heavier, with drivers who generally are not meeting U.S. standards 
for safety, for training, for drug testing, for log books, for records 
of offenses being kept in a central data file, perhaps for insurance, 
for labeling for hazardous materials, 25 percent of the trucks coming 
across the border carry hazardous materials; 1 in 14, 7 percent, are 
labeled. What is going to happen when one of those goes over somewhere 
on I-5 in California or in a heavily populated part of Oregon or 
Washington? We will not know what is in it. We will not know how to 
deal with it. We are going to not only put the traveling public at 
risk, we are going to put communities at risk. We are going to put the 
firefighters and the first responders at risk.
  No, let us have the Mexicans adopt stringent laws for safety, then 
enforce those laws, and after they do that, then we will be great 
neighbors, and we will be happy to welcome their fully inspected, 
safely driven trucks into the United States of America. But until they 
meet those standards, no, no, no, no, no.
  This will kill Americans. People will die for profit, and that is not 
right.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 285, 
noes 143, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 193]

                               AYES--285

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--143

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Callahan
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Coble
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Tom
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Frelinghuysen
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Greenwood
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Burton
     LaTourette
     Platts
     Putnam
     Sweeney

[[Page 11962]]



                              {time}  1909

  Mrs. WILSON, Mrs. CUBIN, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr. GREENWOOD and Mr. BACHUS 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BAIRD, COMBEST, BUYER, JEFFERSON, FOSSELLA, PICKERING, HYDE, 
DUNCAN and MICA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. HINOJOSA changed his vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not rise to thank the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young); the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); the 
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers); and 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo); for 
acceding to the request made by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) and myself to include funds in this bill for the environmental 
impact statement for the New York-New Jersey Cross Harbor Rail Freight 
Tunnel.
  This project was first authorized in TEA-21 and received funds for a 
Major Investment Study, which was completed last year.
  New York City, Long Island, and Westchester and Putnam Counties and 
the State of Connecticut are virtually cut off from the rest of the 
country's rail freight system for lack of any way for rail freight to 
cross the Hudson River, except at a bridge 140 miles north of New York 
City.
  After examining numerous alternatives, the MIS recommended 
construction of a rail tunnel under New York Harbor. The benefit to the 
region will be about $420 million a year and the benefit to cost ratio 
is 2.3 to 1. The environmental impact will be profound as it would 
remove 1 million tractor trailers from off the region's roads a year. 
So I am gratified this was included in the bill. I am disappointed the 
Second Avenue Subway was not included in the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Transportation 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002''.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Isakson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House Resolution 178, he reported the bill back 
to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 426, 
nays 1, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 194]

                               YEAS--426

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     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
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--1

       
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Burton
     LaTourette
     Platts
     Putnam
     Sweeney
     Woolsey

                              {time}  1930

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page 11963]]

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________