THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[Page: H3544] GPO's PDF
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 190, I was delayed because of constituents in my office, however, I would have voted ``no'' on the question of consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. WILSON). The gentleman from New York (Mr. REYNOLDS) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. FROST), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.
Madam Speaker, House Resolution 178 is an open rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 2299, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for the Fiscal Year ending September 30, 2002. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.
The rule also provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
The rule provides that the bill shall be considered for amendment by paragraph.
In addition, the rule waives clause 2 of rule XXI (prohibiting unauthorized or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill) against provisions in the bill, except as otherwise specified in the rule.
Further, the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Madam Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations has worked diligently to produce legislation that meets the Nation's transportation priorities. As more and more Americans hit the airways and the highways each year, this Congress can take pride in the fact that the underlying legislation represents an increase in safety measures and resources in every area of our transportation system.
With all of the travel we do back and forth to our home districts, I am sure my colleagues can relate to the frustration of airline delays. That frustration is tenfold for countless Americans who rely on air travel for work and for pleasure each and every day.
This bill includes several provisions to address the problem of airline delays such as fully funding the ``Free Flight'' program and raising funding for the ``Safe Flight 21'' programs. These programs develop technologies to aid in the improvement of airway capacity both responsibly and prudently.
Moreover, the bill meets the funding obligation limitation in the transportation legislation known as TEA 21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, by providing $31.7 billion in highway program obligation limitations, a 4 percent increase over the current fiscal year's level. Continuing our commitment toward investments in the Nation's infrastructure, this bill provides nearly $59.1 billion in total budgetary resources, a responsible 2 percent increase over the current fiscal year.
This bill, much like last year's, continues to improve and enhance motor carrier safety by providing $206 million for motor carrier safety grants, an increase of $29 million that is consistent with truck safety reforms enacted as part of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999.
This body recently passed the Coast Guard authorization for fiscal year 2002. The Coast Guard's duties include promoting the safety of life and property at sea, enforcing all applicable Federal laws on the high seas, maintaining navigation aids, protecting the marine environment, and securing the safety and security of vessels, ports, and waterways.
The legislation before us today appropriates in the amount of $5 billion, including $600 million for the Coast Guard's capital needs and $300 million available to initiate the ``Deepwater'' program, which will fight the scourge of illicit drugs, provide support for offshore search and rescue, and work to protect Americans and American shores.
In addition, the bill provides $521 million for Amtrak's capital needs. This funding will cover capital expenses and preventive maintenance. This bill sustains the Federal commitment to continue in partnership with Amtrak and to help it reach its goal of self-sufficiency.
These, along with other modest increases within the bill, will allow the Department of Transportation to have greater flexibility and oversight control for both large and small projects alike. Ensuring proper funding levels ensures the ability of the Department of Transportation to do its job, making travel safer and easier for us all.
Safety should remain the Federal Government's highest responsibility in the transportation area. Clearly, whether by land, by sea, or by air, this bill addresses those needs and concerns, while maintaining the fiscal discipline that has been the hallmark of this Congress.
Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. YOUNG), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY), the ranking member, for their hard work on this measure. I would also like to commend the Chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation and its ranking member. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I would first like to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. ROGERS) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. SABO) for all of their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. The members of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation have brought us a good bill that funds a number of vital transportation projects, including one important to my congressional district in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
I am pleased that the bill will provide $70 million to the North Central Light Rail Transit Extension. A bipartisan group of North Texas members worked very hard to get this funding that will more than double DART's light rail coverage and help stimulate development in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex.
However, Madam Speaker, while this is a good bill overall, I cannot support the rule supported by the Republican majority because they have denied a request made by the Democratic ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation, who sought to offer an important amendment relating to the safety issues raised by allowing Mexican trucks to enter the United States.
I must also oppose this rule because of the issue of the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority and the renaming of the National Airport Metro stop. Time and again over the last 6 1/2 years, the Republican majority has selectively ignored their own mantra of local control when it suits an idealogical purpose. The renaming of this Metro stop ignores the wishes of the local authorities, as well as the Member representing this area. And for that reason, as well as the fact that the Sabo amendment was shut out by the Committee on Rules, I oppose the rule.
One of the greatest defects of this rule is the fact that the Republican leadership, working in concert with the President, has prevented the House from addressing a serious highway safety issue: the safety standards of Mexican trucks entering this country under NAFTA.
The Bush administration has lifted all restrictions on the movement of Mexican trucks on our highways effective January 1, 2002. Next year, Mexican trucks will be free to drive across the country, despite clear evidence that many are unsafe for our highways .
In May, the Department of Transportation's Inspector General found that the Federal Government needs to add dozens of additional border inspectors before lifting restrictions on Mexican trucks. The few inspectors now policing the borders found that 40 percent of Mexican trucks that are currently allowed into the U.S. were pulled out of service for significant violations of our safety standards, much higher than the percentage of violations among U.S. trucks.
So many of these trucks are deemed unsafe for our roads because they are
[Page: H3545] GPO's PDF
For example, Mexican trucks are 10 years older than U.S. trucks, on average, and do not comply with weight standards. Mexico has no hours-of-service regulations, while U.S. drivers can only drive 10 hours per shift. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. SABO) offered a sensible amendment that would require the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to conduct a safety compliance review of each Mexican motor carrier that seeks to operate throughout the United States and to require that they be found to be satisfactory under the same standards applicable to U.S. carriers before being granted conditional or permanent operating authority.
However, the Republican leadership has refused to allow the House to vote on the Sabo amendment. I simply cannot understand why the administration and the House leadership oppose what the gentleman has proposed. The Republican leadership's refusal to recognize safety concerns related to the use of these trucks throughout the United States is nothing short of negligent, Madam Speaker.
This highway safety issue is particularly critical in Texas, as well as in my own congressional district where I35 runs through the middle of the district, since two-thirds of Mexican trucks enter the U.S. through Texas; and many of those trucks will travel on I35 to reach interior destinations. But make no mistake: this is a serious safety issue coming to highways all across America, now that the President has lifted any and all restrictions on Mexican trucks operating on American roads and highways .
This rule also prevents discussion of how to pay for relabeling Metro signs for National Airport. In 1998, over strong local opposition, the Republican leadership decided to rename Washington's National Airport in honor of President Ronald Reagan. Now, in this bill, they are requiring the already-strapped Washington Metro Authority to change all of their station signs, maps, directories, and documents to reflect the new name, but Republican leaders are not providing one single penny of the $400,000 it will cost to do this.
Madam Speaker, I served in the Congress when Ronald Reagan was President. I understand that many Republicans and Democrats want to honor him. Indeed, this Congress and this Nation have already done much to ensure President Reagan's accomplishments get the respect they deserve. But a $400,000 unfunded mandate hardly seems like a fitting tribute to President Reagan. After all, he made a career of campaigning on behalf of local control.
In my own district, we would not take kindly to the Federal Government forcing us to spend $400,000 in local funds that might otherwise have been already budgeted for health care or schools or other local priorities. I understand why this local community would resist spending $400,000 on a symbolic name change while far too many children in the District of Columbia go without food at the end of the month.
Madam Speaker, if the Republican leadership and Grover Norquist believe new Metro signs and maps are such an important priority, then they should provide the money to pay for them. It is just plain wrong to force local governments to spend this money on maps for tourists instead of meals for children. Mr. Norquist and other Republican leaders do President Reagan no favor by imposing this unfunded mandate in his name.
Madam Speaker, I believe the House should be allowed to consider and vote on the issue of the safety of our Nation's highways . These are the same roads school buses travel and people use to get to and from work.
[Time: 13:30]
Their safety should be paramount.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule so we may go back to the Committee on Rules and find a better way to address this important issue.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. ROGERS), the Chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. REYNOLDS) for yielding me the time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. It is a good rule, it is a fair rule, and it needs to be adopted. At the outset, I want to advise the Members that we have worked closely and cooperatively with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to resolve areas of disagreement on the bill.
The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. YOUNG) and this gentleman have been able to work out almost everything to our mutual satisfaction. We do not agree with their position on every matter, but we do not begrudge their right to assert their concerns and jurisdiction.
Under this rule, the authorizing committee will in a number of instances exercise its prerogatives under the rules of the House to remove provisions that our committee believes are important and necessary, but which fall within their jurisdiction. The rule preserves their right to do that. In a number of other cases, the authorizing committee has agreed not to object to provisions included by our committee, which, again, we believe are necessary to carry out the programs in the bill.
It is vitally important, Madam Speaker, that we adopt the rule and proceed to consider the Transportation appropriations bill. The bill contains $59 billion for highways , airport grants and other aviation programs, highway safety activities, pipeline safety programs, many other items that are critical to every State and to individual Members of the House and, of course, our people.
We are within our funding allocation and the budget resolution. The bill is balanced. It is bipartisan and deserves the support of every Member of this body.
Let me briefly discuss the issue of Mexican trucks and NAFTA. As my colleagues know, the President says that we will be opening our border pursuant to NAFTA in January of next year.
This administration has a plan to ensure the safety of Mexican carriers that transport goods beyond the commercial zones and into the interior of the United States. The administration has put money behind that plan in its budget request. We fund that plan to the penny and then some. In fact, we provide increases above the President's request for the inspection of Mexican carriers at the border. The administration requested $88.2 million above current-year spending. We include $100.2 above the current year, an 800 percent increase.
This money will pay for border inspection facilities and more inspectors. It pays for a common-sense plan that the House needs to support. In addition, our committee has included language in the committee report directing the Department of Transportation to implement a strong safety oversight program that ensures the operational safety of Mexican motor carriers who seek permission to operate in the U.S.
Madam Speaker, together these provisions ensure compliance with U.S. safety laws and regulations, while it allows free trade to go forward. It is the responsible approach, and it complies with NAFTA.
Madam Speaker, I have some serious reservations that the proposal from the other side would, in fact, violate NAFTA, subjecting the United States to severe fines.
Madam Speaker, this is a good rule. It is a good bill, and I would hope that Members would support both today.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY).
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I simply want to rise to express my opposition to this rule because of its failure to include the right of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. SABO) to offer his amendment on truck safety.
Very simply, what his amendment seeks to do is to require the establishment of procedures to guarantee that Mexican trucks will be safe before they are allowed to travel all over the
[Page: H3546] GPO's PDF
There are no motor carrier hours of service regulations in Mexico. There is no way at this point to check the driving records, the driving history of Mexican motor carrier drivers. The out-of-service record for those trucks in the areas where they have been checked near the border is astronomical. Those trucks should not be on the road without severe safety precautions.
It is asserted that somehow the Sabo amendment would be a violation of NAFTA. That is nonsense. NAFTA is a trade pact. It is not a suicide pact.
We are not required to put the safety of our motorists at risk in order to satisfy some international bureaucracy. We have already had a ruling that makes quite clear that the United States has the authority, whatever authority we need to exercise, in order to protect the safety of American travelers.
I find it ironic that this House will spend a lot of time on this Mickey Mouse amendment to require the renaming of a train station in the District of Columbia area and yet will not take the time to fully the debate the issue raised by the gentleman from Minnesota. I think that represents a warped set of priorities.
I also find it ironic that the Republican majority has said through legislation that when the question of worker safety is at stake, as was the case with the ergonomics regulations that the Labor Department wanted to put into effect some time ago, I find it ironic that at this point the Republican majority of this House said, ``Oh, no, the regulations must wait. We are not going to worry about safety.''
Yet at this point, when we are asking them again to take into account the safety considerations for American drivers, they are saying, ``Damn the truck safety consequences, full speed ahead!'' if I can plagiarize from Admiral Farragut.
| <<< | >>> |
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display