[Congressional Record: September 20, 1995 (House)] [Page H9257-H9309] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT OF 1995 Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 224 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 224 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2274) to amend title 23, United States Code, to designate the National Highway System, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 2349. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title rather than by section. The first two sections and each title shall be considered as read. Points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 1(q)(10) of rule X, clause 5(a) of rule XXI, or section 302(f) of the congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. Before consideration of any other amendment it shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative Shuster of Pennsylvania or his designee. That amendment shall be considered as read, may amend portions of the bill not yet read for amendment, shall be debatable for ten minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against that amendment are waived. After disposition of that amendment, the provisions of the bill as then perfected shall be considered as original text. During further consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. 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 [[Page H 9258]] resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.) Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 224 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2274, the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment consisting of the text of H.R. 2349. The substitute shall be considered by title rather than by section, and the first two sections and each title shall be considered as read. The rule waives section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, prohibiting consideration of legislation providing new budget authority in excess of a committee's allocation, against consideration of the bill and against the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Also, the rule waives clause 5(a) of rule XXI, prohibiting appropriations in a legislative bill, and clause 1(q)(10) of rule X, prohibiting inclusion in a general roads bill of provisions addressing specific roads, against the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The rule further provides for the consideration of the manager's amendment printed in the Rules Committee report. The amendment is considered as read, and is debatable for 10 minutes equally divided between the proponent and an opponent. All points of order against the amendment are waived. If adopted, the amendment is considered as part of the base text for the purpose of further amendment. 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. Mr. Speaker, as a freshman Member of Congress back in 1963, I proudly served on the Public Works Committee. I developed a high respect for the difficult and important work done by the committee. They did a great job back then, and that hasn't changed. Chairman Bud Shuster and the other members of the committee have done an outstanding job in putting together this important bill. As always, the committee worked with a bipartisan spirit and I strongly support this legislation. The establishment of the National Highway System is essential to ensure the necessary infrastructure to carry people and goods safely and efficiently across the country will into the 21st century. I understand that an agreement was made to allow a vote on taking the trust funds off budget at a later time. I personally support taking the various transportation trust funds off budget, but I don't want to see this legislation stalled because of those provisions, and I look forward to voting on this issue sometime in the near future. There are some concerns over certain provisions of this bill, such as repealing the maximum speed limit and helmet penalties. This open rule will allow all Members to fully participate in the amendment process, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I insert extraneous materials into the Record as follows: THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS [As of September 19, 1995] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 103d Congress 104th Congress Rule type --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Open/Modified-open \2\.............. 46 44 47 74 Modified Closed \3\................. 49 47 15 23 Closed \4\.......................... 9 9 2 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Totals:....................... 104 100 64 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an open amendment process under House rules. \2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be preprinted in the Congressional Record. \3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open to amendment. \4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the committee in reporting the bill). SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS [As of September 19, 1995] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H. Res. No. (Date rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject Disposition of rule ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H. Res. 38 (1/18/95) O................... H.R. 5.............. Unfunded Mandate Reform.. A: 350-71 (1/19/ 95). H. Res. 44 (1/24/95) MC.................. H. Con. Res. 17..... Social Security.......... A: 255-172 (1/25/ H.J. Res. 1......... Balanced Budget Amdt..... 95). H. Res. 51 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 101............ Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/1/ Pueblo Indians. 95). H. Res. 52 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 400............ Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/1/ Nat'l. Park and Preserve. 95). H. Res. 53 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 440............ Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/1/ County, Calif. 95). H. Res. 55 (2/1/95). O................... H.R. 2.............. Line Item Veto........... A: voice vote (2/2/ 95). H. Res. 60 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 665............ Victim Restitution....... A: voice vote (2/7/ 95). H. Res. 61 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 666............ Exclusionary Rule Reform. A: voice vote (2/7/ 95). H. Res. 63 (2/8/95). MO.................. H.R. 667............ Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/9/ Incarceration. 95). H. Res. 69 (2/9/95). O................... H.R. 668............ Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/10/ Deportation. 95). H. Res. 79 (2/10/95) MO.................. H.R. 728............ Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/13/ Grants. 95). H. Res. 83 (2/13/95) MO.................. H.R. 7.............. National Security PQ: 229-100; A: 227- Revitalization. 127 (2/15/95). H. Res. 88 (2/16/95) MC.................. H.R. 831............ Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A: 229- Deductibility. 188 (2/21/95). H. Res. 91 (2/21/95) O................... H.R. 830............ Paperwork Reduction Act.. A: voice vote (2/22/ 95). H. Res. 92 (2/21/95) MC.................. H.R. 889............ Defense Supplemental..... A: 282-144 (2/22/ 95). H. Res. 93 (2/22/95) MO.................. H.R. 450............ Regulatory Transition Act A: 252-175 (2/23/ 95). H. Res. 96 (2/24/95) MO.................. H.R. 1022........... Risk Assessment.......... A: 253-165 (2/27/ 95). H. Res. 100 (2/27/ O................... H.R. 926............ Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/28/ 95). Relief Act. 95). H. Res. 101 (2/28/ MO.................. H.R. 925............ Private Property A: 271-151 (3/2/95) 95). Protection Act. H. Res. 103 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 1058........... Securities Litigation ................... Reform. H. Res. 104 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 988............ Attorney Accountability A: voice vote (3/6/ Act. 95) H. Res. 105 (3/6/95) MO.................. .................... ......................... A: 257-155 (3/7/95) H. Res. 108 (3/7/95) Debate.............. H.R. 956............ Product Liability Reform. A: voice vote (3/8/ 95) H. Res. 109 (3/8/95) MC.................. .................... ......................... PQ: 234-191 A: 247- 181 (3/9/95) H. Res. 115 (3/14/ MO.................. H.R. 1159........... Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/ 95). Approps.. 95) H. Res. 116 (3/15/ MC.................. H.J. Res. 73........ Term Limits Const. Amdt.. A: voice vote (3/28/ 95). 95) H. Res. 117 (3/16/ Debate.............. H.R. 4.............. Personal Responsibility A: voice vote (3/21/ 95). Act of 1995. 95) H. Res. 119 (3/21/ MC.................. .................... ......................... A: 217-211 (3/22/ 95). 95) H. Res. 125 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 1271........... Family Privacy Protection A: 423-1 (4/4/95) Act. H. Res. 126 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 660............ Older Persons Housing Act A: voice vote (4/6/ 95) H. Res. 128 (4/4/95) MC.................. H.R. 1215........... Contract With America Tax A: 228-204 (4/5/95) Relief Act of 1995. H. Res. 130 (4/5/95) MC.................. H.R. 483............ Medicare Select Expansion A: 253-172 (4/6/ 95) H. Res. 136 (5/1/95) O................... H.R. 655............ Hydrogen Future Act of A: voice vote (5/2/ 1995. 95) H. Res. 139 (5/3/95) O................... H.R. 1361........... Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996 A: voice vote (5/9/ 95) H. Res. 140 (5/9/95) O................... H.R. 961............ Clean Water Amendments... A: 414-4 (5/10/95) H. Res. 144 (5/11/ O................... H.R. 535............ Fish Hatchery--Arkansas.. A: voice vote (5/15/ 95). 95) H. Res. 145 (5/11/ O................... H.R. 584............ Fish Hatchery--Iowa...... A: voice vote (5/15/ 95). 95) H. Res. 146 (5/11/ O................... H.R. 614............ Fish Hatchery--Minnesota. A: voice vote (5/15/ 95). 95) H. Res. 149 (5/16/ MC.................. H. Con. Res. 67..... Budget Resolution FY 1996 PQ: 252-170 A: 255- 95). 168 (5/17/95) [[Page H 9259]] H. Res. 155 (5/22/ MO.................. H.R. 1561........... American Overseas A: 233-176 (5/23/ 95). Interests Act. 95) H. Res. 164 (6/8/95) MC.................. H.R. 1530........... Nat. Defense Auth. FY PQ: 225-191 A: 233- 1996. 183 (6/13/95) H. Res. 167 (6/15/ O................... H.R. 1817........... MilCon Appropriations FY PQ: 223-180 A: 245- 95). 1996. 155 (6/16/95) H. Res. 169 (6/19/ MC.................. H.R. 1854........... Leg. Branch Approps. FY PQ: 232-196 A: 236- 95). 1996. 191 (6/20/95) H. Res. 170 (6/20/ O................... H.R. 1868........... For. Ops. Approps. FY PQ: 221-178 A: 217- 95). 1996. 175 (6/22/95) H. Res. 171 (6/22/ O................... H.R. 1905........... Energy & Water Approps. A: voice vote (7/12/ 95). FY 1996. 95) H. Res. 173 (6/27/ C................... H.J. Res. 79........ Flag Constitutional PQ: 258-170 A: 271- 95). Amendment. 152 (6/28/95) H. Res. 176 (6/28/ MC.................. H.R. 1944........... Emer. Supp. Approps...... PQ: 236-194 A: 234- 95). 192 (6/29/95) H. Res. 185 (7/11/ O................... H.R. 1977........... Interior Approps. FY 1996 PQ: 235-193 D: 192- 95). 238 (7/12/95) H. Res. 187 (7/12/ O................... H.R. 1977........... Interior Approps. FY 1996 PQ: 230-194 A: 229- 95). #2. 195 (7/13/95) H. Res. 188 (7/12/ O................... H.R. 1976........... Agriculture Approps. FY PQ: 242-185 A: 95). 1996. voice vote (7/18/ 95) H. Res. 190 (7/17/ O................... H.R. 2020........... Treasury/Postal Approps. PQ: 232-192 A: 95). FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/ 95) H. Res. 193 (7/19/ C................... H.J. Res. 96........ Disapproval of MFN to A: voice vote (7/20/ 95). China. 95) H. Res. 194 (7/19/ O................... H.R. 2002........... Transportation Approps. PQ: 217-202 (7/21/ 95). FY 1996. 95) H. Res. 197 (7/21/ O................... H.R. 70............. Exports of Alaskan Crude A: voice vote (7/24/ 95). Oil. 95) H. Res. 198 (7/21/ O................... H.R. 2076........... Commerce, State Approps. A: voice vote (7/25/ 95). FY 1996. 95) H. Res. 201 (7/25/ O................... H.R. 2099........... VA/HUD Approps. FY 1996.. A: 230-189 (7/25/ 95). 95) H. Res. 204 (7/28/ MC.................. S. 21............... Terminating U.S. Arms A: voice vote (8/1/ 95). Embargo on Bosnia. 95) H. Res. 205 (7/28/ O................... H.R. 2126........... Defense Approps. FY 1996. A: 409-1 (7/31/95) 95). H. Res. 207 (8/1/95) MC.................. H.R. 1555........... Communications Act of A: 255-156 (8/2/95) 1995. H. Res. 208 (8/1/95) O................... H.R. 2127........... Labor, HHS Approps. FY A: 323-104 (8/2/95) 1996. H. Res. 215 (9/7/95) O................... H.R. 1594........... Economically Targeted A: voice vote (9/12/ Investments. 95) H. Res. 216 (9/7/95) MO.................. H.R. 1655........... Intelligence A: voice vote (9/12/ Authorization FY 1996. 95) H. Res. 218 (9/12/ O................... H.R. 1162........... Deficit Reduction Lockbox A: voice vote (9/13/ 95). 95) H. Res. 219 (9/12/ O................... H.R. 1670........... Federal Acquisition A: 414-0 (9/13/95) 95). Reform Act. H. Res. 222 (9/18/ O................... H.R. 1617........... CAREERS Act.............. A: 388-2 (9/19/95) 95). H. Res. 224 (9/19/ O................... H.R. 2274........... Natl. Highway System..... ................... 95). H. Res. 225 (9/19/ MC.................. H.R. 927............ Cuban Liberty & Dem. ................... 95). Solidarity. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress. Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. {time} 1145 Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 224 and in support of H.R. 2274. This is urgent legislation and I urge its quick passage in order to protect the funds for the Nation's highway system. The Transportation Committee is to be commended for bringing forward a bipartisan bill which is truly in the Nation's interest. While there are several issues which are controversial, most notably the repeal of the Federal speed limit and the motorcycle helmet requirement, this open rule will allow the House to fully debate these and other issues. However, in spite of my support for this rule, it is my intention to call for a no vote on the previous question for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Committee on Ways and Means is holding its only day of hearings on proposals to cut Medicare by $270 billion. In spite of the fact that my Democratic colleagues on Ways and Means have objected in the strongest possible terms to giving these enormous changes such short shift, the Republican majority has not seen fit to give the public the opportunity to fully digest and comment on their proposal. And, I might add, no one has actually seen any text and clairvoyance is required to comment on the specifics of the Republican proposal. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I will call for a no vote on the previous question in order to allow an amendment to the rule to permit the consideration of House Resolution 221, a resolution sponsored by 201 Members calling for additional hearings on Medicare legislation. As I stated at the outset, I support the open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2274. Mr. Speaker, I especially want to thank the Transportation Committee for their designation of Interstate 35 as a congressional high priority highway. This road, which runs through the middle of my congressional district, stretches from Laredo, TX at the Mexican border, to Duluth, MN, at the Canadian border. It also connects by a trunk road with the transportation facilities in Kansas City, MO. I-35 is a vital transportation link between the three NAFTA partner- nations and has rightfully been called a river of trade. Because of the lack of adequate rail systems in Mexico, highways are truly a vital link for that Nation's trade to the north. In fact, approximately 74 percent of Mexico's trade with the United States travels on our highways and more than half of that amount crosses the border at Laredo. Interstate 35 benefits every State and every community along its 1,500 mile route because trade is truly a two-way street. United States and Mexican officials are predicting a doubling of trade between now and the year 2000 and another doubling by 2010. Texas commerce with Mexico accounted for $20.3 billion in exports in 1992, and Oklahoma's exports to Mexico in 1993 totaled $158 million up 226 percent from 1989 levels. Running through the Nation's midsection, I-35 links the entire United States with Canadian and Mexican markets through rail, air and truck links. It is the hope of the multistate I-35 Corridor Coalition that the designation of I-35 as a high priority corridor is just a first step toward the eventual designation of this vital transportation link as the International NAFTA Superhighway. With increased trade will come increased traffic and a need for enhanced safety mechanisms as well as construction and maintenance of the roadway. I-35 is currently the only fully constructed north-south Interstate link between Mexico and Canada and its high priority designation will enhance efforts to improve the road to accommodate the increase in commercial traffic that has begun and promises only to grow. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take the opportunity to salute my friend and colleague, Norm Mineta. His service to the Congress and particularly to the transportation needs of this great Nation has been a model of dedication and high-mindedness. He has been both a champion of noble causes and a workhorse in the day-to-day business of the House. Our country and this Congress are far better because of him and he will be missed. I salute you Norm and wish you well as you take leave of us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The Chair joins in recognition of the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]. Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], a very valuable member of the Committee on Rules. Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this open rule for H.R. 2274, the National Highway Designation System Act of 1995. As a member of the Committee on Rules, I am very pleased we are bringing to the floor today yet another open rule, one which will permit the House to have a thorough and complete debate on this very important, timely legislation. This resolution honors our commitment to an open amendment process, and by including a preprinting option, the committee continues to encourage Members to make their amendments available for their colleagues to review before debate begins on the House floor. While the focus of this legislation is to designate the National Highway System, it also takes a much-needed step to provide immediate relief from a number of costly Federal mandates or requirements put in place by ISTEA in 1991. I would like to express my thanks to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [[Page H 9260]] Chairman Shuster, and to other members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, especially my colleague from Mississippi, Mr. Parker, for a thoughtful reconsideration of and for working to include in this bill a provision to repeal the so-called crumb rubber mandate. Well intended, and enacted as an incentive to encourage the use of recycled paving material, the crumb rubber mandate also carried with it a heavy penalty for noncompliance. But the universal application of crumb rubber has, at its best, met with mixed results. For example, what works in warmer climates does not necessarily work in cold. Therefore, many State transportation departments, including the Ohio Department of Transportation, have voiced their strong concerns about this example of overreach by the Federal Government. In Ohio alone, this mandate costs $50 million each year, money that could be used to repave nearly 700 miles of highways, or rehabilitate 137 bridges. Repealing this mandate simply reaffirms that States indeed know how best to build highways in their locales, and it is a very positive step toward allowing the States more freedom and flexibility to make important highway construction decisions. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has reported a very responsible bill, which must be completed before the end of the month in order for valuable highway funds to continue flowing to the States. The rule before us will set the stage for this kind of deliberation that is needed in this body, and I urge my colleagues to support this fair and open rule. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the House is embarking on I think a very bad precedent and a very dangerous course. Many of my colleagues wonder why the motion to adjourn today? The answer is very simple: First of all, the rights of the Members of the institution are being severely impinged upon. The House is being called upon in just a few days to consider legislation on which there have been very little in the way of hearings; indeed, in our committee, no hearings on either the Medicare or Medicaid proposals, and in the Committee on Ways and Means, a similar situation. Members are not going to know what the questions are associated with regard to the legislation. The bill, which was submitted to our committee and which is being written in our committee as we speak here at this moment, was submitted to the Congress Monday night; that is, September 18, at 9 p.m. The markup on this in our committee commences today. This is on proposal which was already changed since it was sent up. The staff on the Committee on Commerce spent all night Monday night and all night last night on the minority side looking to try to understand what is in this piece of legislation. A similar situation impends with regard to the Medicare proposal. These proposals have been part of the Republican Contract on America since last summer when my Republican colleagues marched to the front of the Capitol to join in a big signing ceremony. They knew what was going to be in it, but they have not shared it with the American people. Now, the question is, why is this great haste before us? Why are we being compelled to consider legislation which has not yet been made available to the Congress, on which no American citizen has either understanding or appreciation of all of the enormous subtleties? These are pieces of legislation which will run to scores, if not hundreds, of pages. These are pieces of legislation which are going to affect every citizen in this country, which are going to have significant impact on the poor, the young, the old. Indeed, they are going to lend credit to the claims that the Republicans are giving new meaning to the words ``women and children first,'' and that it is the women and children and the old and the poor and the weak who are going to be most afflicted by these changes. Now, I would say on the basis of some 40 years service in this body, that the best legislation is bipartisan legislation when it can be gotten. The second best legislation is legislation which is crafted and contrived in an open fashion, in which everyone here has an opportunity to ask questions and to understand fully all of the issues that are involved and to get the best answers we can, so that we craft the best public policy. Here we have a situation with no hearings on either Medicare or Medicaid. There are not cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. There has been no opportunity for interested persons to be heard. And this is true with regard to either Medicare or Medicaid. The bill on which this rule would be offered has had 6 days of hearings and markup. The bill was started February 8. Discussion has been going on for months. The early drafts were made available to the Congress. There has been fair discussion. And whether you are for or against the bill that this rule would make in order, you cannot say that the process has not been at least basically fair and open. No such claim can be made with regard to Medicare and Medicaid. The matter has been conducted in such a haphazard, sloppy and concealed way, that no person can really tell you what is in the bill or what the impact of it is going to be. We sought responses from Governors of a number of States, interestingly enough, all but one Republicans, and we got an answer from no one except from the one Democratic Governor, in which on Medicaid it was said the result would be devastation of the Medicaid program for the State of Florida. These are not issues which are small. Even President Reagan talked about the safety net. And in his discussion of the safety net, he said it is going to take care of those who are most poor, least able to address change, and least able to sustain hurt, and those who have the least resources with which to address the costs and the stresses of life, particularly from the standpoint of health and things of that kind. This legislation, with regard to Medicaid, which is not being marked up in our committee, is not a safety net anymore. It is simply a big concrete floor on which the poorest and the least well-to-do in our country are going to come smash. No hearings, no opportunity to be heard, and, indeed, a terrible result. Reject this rule. Let us have an open rule, so that we can bring this legislation to the floor after an appropriate period of hearing and after the rule has been amended to enable this side to get full hearings on the matter. {time} 1200 Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thought we were discussing the highway bill and not Medicare, and I think in the future, we should confine our remarks to the rule before us. I dislike making a point of order, and I will not do it at this time, but I would hope that we confine our remarks to the bill before us. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the distinguished chairman of the committee. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I thank the gentlewoman for letting me go essentially out of order so we can get all the things done we need to do. Mr. Speaker, this is historic and urgent legislation, and I commend the Committee on Rules and the leadership for bringing this open rule to the floor. We must pass this legislation quickly so that we free up nearly $6 billion of funds, critical highway funds that will go to our States. As a show of good faith and a strong commitment to getting this bill out quickly, I have agreed to drop two important provisions. First, I have agreed to drop the provision in the bill which passed overwhelmingly in the committee, indeed, I believe unanimously, to take the transportation trust funds out of the general fund budget. I did this because I received a commitment from the leadership that we will, indeed, have a vote on this issue later this year after the appropriations and the reconciliation process. It is important to emphasize that there are 222 Members of this body who are cosponsors of the legislation to remove the transportation trust funds off [[Page H 9261]] budget, a majority; many others have committed to vote for it who are not cosponsors. Indeed, a majority of the Republicans of the House are cosponsors; nearly a majority of the Democrats of the house are cosponsors; a majority of the Republican freshman class are cosponsors. That issue has strong bipartisan support. But I have agreed to drop it in the interests of moving the national highway system bill quickly. Secondly, I have agreed to drop the trigger provision which will move up the reauthorization of ISTEA from 1997 to 1996. I still believe there are solid policy reasons for doing this. However, because we want to bring bipartisan legislation to the floor and some of my Democratic colleagues on the committee have problems with this, again, in the interests of bipartisanship and good faith, I have agreed to drop this provision in this legislation. We may well consider it in another context later this year, but we need to pass the national highway system bill quickly. Also, dropping these two important provisions, also, is being done with an eye toward demonstrating to the other body we want to cooperate with them. They have expressed concerns about these two provisions as well in this particular piece of legislation. So we have dropped those controversial provisions so that we can move quickly and get the national highway system final approval and get the money released to the States so we can build highways, improve productivity for Americans and save lives. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior]. Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me join my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], in commending the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking member and former chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for outstanding service to this Nation on important issues related to the committee on which he serves and particularly the highways of this country, and to also commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership throughout the years as well, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and the Committee on Rules for bringing an open rule to the floor of the House, which is refreshing to see on this floor. I wanted to talk about the priorities in which we are addressing issues in this Congress and, of course, the rule debate is on the priorities which we believe are important to bring forward to the American people. While I think this highway bill is, indeed, an important bill, I think it quite frankly this month or in the next 2 months, I should say, pales in comparison to what may in fact happen with respect to Medicaid and Medicare, a cut of over $450 billion for people who need those particular resources in order to survive either as senior citizens in this country or people who are struggling at the lower end of our economic spectrum. I would just echo the comments that were made by my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], I think, correctly pointed out that we have had hearings on this highway bill that lasted 6 days. They started on February 8. Discussions have been going on for 7 months. We have also seen that we have had Ruby Ridge debated in hearings for 2 weeks, Waco for 2 weeks, we had 28 days of hearings on Whitewater. This bill, the highway bill that we are discussing today, 6 days, yet when it comes to the biggest bill that will affect over 70 million people directly and probably everyone in the country, cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, over $450 billion, this Congress is relegated to 1 day of hearings, none on Medicaid, 1 on Medicare. It is an outrage. It is an absolute outrage, Mr. Speaker, that that is where we are headed in this most important debate for Americans. Do the American people not deserve more than 1 day debate? Do they not deserve more than 1 day to talk about these ideas? For 9 months now we have heard talk from this side of the aisle about how they plan to save Medicare. But to this day we are still waiting to see what their plan is. We are still waiting for their details. They have brought a highway bill to the floor today, and in that highway bill, they have outlined where they want to take the country. I think they are going to find a lot of general agreement with that. My friend from Pennsylvania, whom I had a kind word about just a second ago, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], came to the floor 10 minutes ago. He talked about the highway trust fund and the moneys in that trust fund being reserved just for highways--just for highways--so they could not be used as a hedge against our ever, actually declining now, but at one time growing budget deficit. It strikes me as rather odd and peculiar that they would come to the floor and make that argument which, frankly, I do not have too much disagreement with, and yet, and yet, when it comes to Medicare, what they want to do and what they have done is they have raided the Medicare trust fund in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest people in our country and the wealthiest corporations in our country. It is hard to understand that type of rationale. But I guess I could understand it if I had a plan, as my colleagues on this side of the aisle do, that would double the Medicare premiums to about $100 a month, that would take away your choice of doctor, that would cut your benefits to pay for these tax breaks for the wealthy; I think I probably would want to keep that hidden, as well. So you want to talk about the truth? Let us talk about the truth here this afternoon. I ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle, why do not you tell people that not a dime of what you are asking seniors to pay in Medicare cuts will go into the trust fund? We have talked about the highway trust fund. Not one dime in the cuts in the Medicare portion of the bill that we will have shortly--$270 billion--will go into the trust fund. It is going to another fund to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest few. Mr. Speaker, we know that the tax cut bill that is being proposed is $245 billion on this side of the aisle, and we also know that $270 billion in Medicare cuts, and we all know the people who will be hurt most by your cuts are the people who need Medicare the most--older Americans, who pay into the system all their lives, who live on fixed incomes, and who cannot afford to see their Medicare premiums doubled. I only hope that you would not come to the floor and tell us that you are not cutting Medicare. Only in Republican Washington can you double somebody's monthly premium in this town and then not call it a cut. You talk about cuts, talk about Medicaid as well, Mr. Speaker. Republicans have proposed the biggest cuts, as I said, in Medicaid in the history of this country. You think they realize that if your Medicaid cuts go through, tens of millions of Americans are going to be denied long-term care, the nursing home care they need to say alive? In this country, 60 percent of Medicaid goes into nursing home care and if these cuts go through, $182 billion worth, in my State of Michigan, I am going to lose 15,000 people who will not be able to have those services next year alone and 175,000 over the course of the 7-year proposal. So, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me just end by suggesting to my friends that it is simply an outrage that we are not allowed to have more hearings, as we are in the highway bill, on Medicare and Medicaid, 1 day of hearings, 1 day of hearings. We on this side of the aisle are so determined to let the American people speak on this that we will have hearings on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol over the next several days. We will bring people here so they can express themselves and express their views on what these proposals will do to them and their families. Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], a very valuable member of the Committee on Rules. Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule which provides for fair debate and consideration of the crucial issues affecting our Nation's transportation needs. Without passage of a bill to designate the National Highway System, our States stand to lose a significant amount of funding desperately needed to improve this Nation's transportation infrastructure. My State of [[Page H 9262]] Utah alone stands to lose up to $78 million of funding per year without passage of an NHS bill, money we desperately need to address the impact of our robust growth. Almost 2,200 miles of highways in Utah are proposed under the NHS bill. These highways carry more than 50 percent of the car travel and more than 80 percent of the truck travel in my State. This bill will play a major role toward promoting Utah's economic development and prosperity, reducing traffic congestion, improving air quality, and maintaining the quality of life Utahns have always appreciated. In addition, I am pleased with the provisions included in this bill that would help to mitigate the negative impacts imposed under section 1003(c) of the 1991 ISTEA bill. Because of the difficulty of precisely estimating future ISTEA highway spending, the States will be hit with a significant reduction in highway funding for fiscal year 1996. This bill takes significant steps to help mitigate those impacts, helping to ensure that the States have funding they need to meet their highway needs for the coming fiscal year. I am also pleased with provisions in the bill that repeal Federal mandates and penalties, including repeal of the national speed limit and the crumb rubber mandate. I know repeal of these provisions is controversial; however, federal mandates such as the national speed limit simply do not make sense for sparsely populated western States like Utah. After discussing appropriate speed limits with our State director of public safety and other law enforcement officials, I am confident that the States will set speed limits that best meet their transportation needs without compromising public safety. Finally, I would like to commend Chairman Shuster for his efforts to take the Transportation trust funds off budget. I believe it is time to release these trust funds for their intended purpose: rebuilding and expanding our badly over-used transportation infrastructure. While I am disappointed that a provision to take the trust funds off budget will not be included in the bill we consider on the floor today, I am pleased that we will have a chance to vote on this important issue later this year. I urge my colleagues to support this open rule so that we may honor our commitment to designate the National Highway System to preserve and improve our Nation's transportation infrastructure. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] for this bill. I am going to support the rule. I have two amendments that are being incorporated into the bill. I want to discuss them briefly. The first one would aid safety rest stop areas for a full eligibility for 100 percent funding under the trust fund. In 1987 I was able to pass legislation signed into law that made bridge impact barriers, breakaway utility poles, signalization, pavement marking, signs, lights, 100 percent funded under the trust fund because people in States with limited money were fixing potholes but letting safety, which was our big talk, talking the talk, we were not walking the walk, in putting up the money for it. {time} 1215 My first amendment, Mr. Speaker, allows 100 percent funding for the safety rest-stop areas, and these are simple turnoffs, and I have report language that is submitted that is saying that they would be simple turnoffs, and there could be no fuel or food sold there because our intent is not to provide competition for commercial rest-stop areas by the States. That is a good amendment, and I appreciate the leaders on both sides having included it in this bill. The second one will study the compliance of the Buy American Act in the procurement by the Federal highway funds and trust fund. Now everybody in this House strongly supports it. Very few people realize the waivers and loopholes that are involved. Japan, as we speak, is coming up with a $100 billion infrastructure program to move their economy, and the last time they did we were not allowed to bid on many of those projects. I believe we should be putting more Americans to work with, in fact, infrastructure improvements in America, but we should be at least looking at the procurement in these expenditures of American-made goods and products. So, Mr. Speaker, the second amendment says, ``Look. How is America complying with, and the Department of Transportation, with Buy American laws, and how many waivers and loopholes are created in here, and how much purchasing of foreign-made goods is going on?'' Mr. Speaker, I am going to support the bill, and I commend the respective leaders on both sides for this bill. I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, the gentleman from California, Mr. Mineta--who is retiring, as well as Mr. Petri and Mr. Rahall, for their work on this bill. I want to talk about two amendments I had included in the bill during committee markup. The first amendment adds the construction of safety rest stop areas to the list of safety projects eligible for 100-percent Federal funding. Currently, the safety rest stop construction projects are not explicitly part of the Federal-aid program, and are not eligible for 100-percent Federal funding. I am not talking about commercial rest stops--the ones with Roy Rogers and TCBY's. I am talking about the construction of simple turn- offs where drivers can safely get some rest. I would hope that in the conference report, language is added that explicitly defines the term ``safety rest areas'' as follows: Any project that provides drivers with an area where they can pull in and rest to reduce fatigue; and/or Any project to increase parking at existing rest areas where fuel and rooms for lodging are not available--in other words: noncommercial rest stops. This would ensure that States do not build rest facilities that compete with commercial truck stops or travel plazas. During my 10 years on the committee, I have been an outspoken proponent of full Federal funding for highway safety projects. In 1987 I was successful in adding language to transportation legislation approved by the committee, and later signed into law, that made certain highway safety improvement projects, such as pavement marking, guard rail enhancement and traffic signalization, eligible for 100-percent Federal funding. My amendment would simply add safety rest stop areas to this list. Numerous studies have shown that the construction of additional rest stops would significantly reduce driver fatigue--especially among truck drivers--thereby reducing the number of traffic accidents associated with driver fatigue. This amendment will ensure that commercial motor vehicle drivers have the opportunity and means to obtain the hours of rest required by Federal hours of service regulations (49 C.F.R. 395). My amendment would not cost additional money--it simply gives States the flexibility necessary to use Federal highway money in the most effective manner to improve safety on their highways. This amendment says: ``Trust the States to determine what safety projects are the most urgently needed, and let the States decide whether or not they have a shortage of safety rest stops.'' My second amendment directs the Secretary of Transportation to study how well the States have been complying with the Buy American Act in spending Federal highway funds. As you know, since coming to Congress I have championed the buy American issue. I believe strongly that, to the greatest extent possible, Federal procurement dollars should be spent on American-made products. Nowhere should this be more true than in the Federal highway program. Most Members of Congress strongly support the Buy American Act. But not many Members are aware of the many waivers and loopholes in the Act that, all too often, result in the purchase of foreign-made products with U.S. tax dollars. The intent of my amendment is to ascertain what percentage of the tens of billions of Federal dollars that have been spent through ISTEA by the States have been spent on goods made in this country. This is another commonsense amendment, and I am pleased that it was included in the bill. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise]. Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leadership of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], full committee ranking [[Page H 9263]] member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], and certainly the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], for bringing this bill to the floor. It is certainly a bill that I think we can all support, a necessary bill, and I have a question, Mr. Speaker. How would the American people feel if they knew this bill were coming to the floor, a bill that is going to control the spending of $20 billion a year out of a trust fund, if they knew this bill were coming to the floor without 1 day of hearings? They would feel pretty bad about it, particularly if it affected millions of Americans. Well, guess what, Mr. Speaker? They do not have to worry about it because the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on a bill that has a trust fund and that roughly appropriates, or handles, $20 billion a year; there were 6 days of hearings in 1995 on this important topic, there were 6 days of hearings in 1994 on this important topic, there were 7 months of bipartisan negotiations. There was a bill that was introduced months ago. The American public can be secure in knowing this bill was fully deliberated. Now how would they feel, Mr. Speaker, knowing that there is a bill, might be a bill, out there that appropriates about, and let me think, Mr. Speaker. It appropriates about six to seven times what is in the highway bill. That is the Medicare trust fund. How would they feel knowing that the bill that would not get a day of hearings, affects 31 million people, that the bill that the Medicare system will get 1 day of hearings; that affects 37 million people. How do they feel knowing that billions more is going to go into health care and will not get but 1 day of hearing between Medicare and Medicaid? Highway trust fund, $20 billion a year, gets 6 days of hearings this year and 7 months of negotiations. Medicare and Medicaid, which Medicare is a trust fund, gets 1 day of hearings, and we have not seen the legislation yet that deals with that legislation, and someone spoke just a minute ago about States losing money. Thank goodness the National Highway System bill is moving because West Virginia could lose several hundred million dollars if it is not enacted by October 1. Thank goodness it is moving. Guess what West Virginia stands to lose under the Medicaid legislation that gets no days of hearings in which the bill came out and was introduced just 2 days ago? First estimates are somewhere between $3 billion and $3\1/2\ billion. So, Mr. Speaker, we can hold 6 days of hearings when a State is going to lose a couple hundred million dollars. We hold no days of hearings when a State is at risk for $3\1/2\ billion and its entire health care system is at stake. Mr. Speaker, I am urging a vote against the previous question. I do support the bill. I think it is interesting the roads that this will build will go to many hospitals. The routes will be open because of this bill; the hospitals could be closed because of the Medicare and Medicaid bill. I think people want a highway bill, but they do not want to get run over by the health care legislation. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett]. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this proposed rule will set the priority for legislative business, and it is the wrong priority. This afternoon, after 9 months, we will have what a Republican aide to the Committee on Ways and Means has probably misdescribed as, I quote, the complete comprehensive details of the Republican pay-more, get-less Medicare plan. But the same aide says that the legislation just is not ready, it is not ready, and we are not ready for the legislation. So, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will have a meaningless, 1-day stacked committee hearing. point of order Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] is in violation of House rule XIV that requires Members to confine themselves to the question under consideration. Mr. Speaker, the question under consideration is House Resolution 224, the rule for the highway bill, and has nothing to do with Medicare. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of order? Mr. DOGGETT. And I also? The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost]. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] objects to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] speaking about the resolution of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], when the matter before the House is the rule on H.R. 2274. The Speaker has ruled on this issue several times in recent years. Probably the clearest guidelines about relevant speech during consideration of a rule come from the Speaker's ruling of September 27, 1990, and I quote: In the Chair's opinion discussing the priority of business is within the confines of the resolution . . . the Chair has ruled that it is certainly within the debate rules of this House to debate whether or not this rule ought to be adopted or another procedure ought to be adopted by the House . . . but when debate ranges into the merits of the relative bills not yet before the House, the Chair would admonish the Members that that goes beyond the resolution . . . Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] has not discussed the merits of Medicare legislation. He has not discussed the details of it or engaged in anything like a debate on that important measure. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas has confined himself to the priority of business argument, that the House ought to be debating the resolution of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] providing for hearings, providing for additional hearings, on Medicare before it gets to this important matter dealing with transportation. The gentleman from Texas has confined himself to the question of whether to adopt the rule before us or a different rule making in order the gentleman from Michigan's resolution that provides for hearings on Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I believe the speech of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] is relevant. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of order? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett]. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Texas has just pointed out, the focus of my remarks from the outset is the priority of legislative business. If a rule is not an appropriate time to discuss the priority of legislative business, I know not when one could discuss the priority, and of course my reason for raising this issue of priority is that I made a parliamentary inquiry only about an hour ago to the Speaker to find out how is it possible to get before the House a resolution signed by 201 Members of this House asking for more complete and fair hearings on Medicare, and I was told there was no way to do that without the approval of Speaker Gingrich. So it seemed to me this was an appropriate way to discuss priorities because I would be denied, as has every other Member of this House, any other way of getting the issue before the House. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a discussion of priorities which I plan, in the brief minute I have remaining, to intermingle with the highway bill under consideration because the two are very related. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Any other Members desiring to be heard on the point of order? If not, the Chair will rule. Debate on a special order providing for the consideration of a bill may range to the merits of the bill to be made in order since the question of consideration of the bill is involved, but should not range to the merits of a measure not to be considered under that special order. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] has made the point of order that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] is engaging in irrelevant debate. Because the gentleman's remarks have in some respects extended to the merits of other measures, the Chair finds that the point of order is well taken. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] shall proceed in order. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is a highway bill, and it is very appropriate that this highway bill should be considered at a time that we are to hear the first details of the Medicare plan because, my colleagues, that plan has been parked at the end of a dark alley. Most people have no idea what is in it, but now suddenly it is being removed from the dark alley, being backed out of that dead-end [[Page H 9264]] alley, and being rushed into the fast lane of the highway. It is like one of those giant 18-wheelers going 90 to nothing down the highway and let everybody else get out of the way. Mr. Speaker, in Texas we call it the bar ditch along the highway, and that is where American seniors are going to be left, in the bar ditch. They are going to feel that they have been hit by more than a highway, by a highway man, a bushwhacker, because they will have more than a flat tire along that bar ditch. They will have a flat wallet, and it is wrong. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are proposing that America follow a highway to nowhere. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment provides for the immediate consideration in the House of House Resolution 221. House Resolution 221 requires that the public be given adequate time to examine the radical changes in the Medicare and Medicaid Programs proposed for the reconciliation bill. The resolution also insists that committees conduct more than a single day of hearings on the largest cuts to the Medicare ever proposed. The public should be allowed to express their views before we are required to vote on such changes. Mr. Speaker, at this point I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I intend to offer be printed in the Record. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. The proposed amendment to House Resolution 224 is as follows: At the end of the resolution, add the following new section: ``Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to consider immediately in the House the resolution, House Resolution 221, printed in section 3 of this rule providing that consideration in the House of Representatives and its committees and subcommittees thereof of any legisation changing existing law with respect to medicare or medicaid pursuant to the reconciliation instructions of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996 shall be preceded by adequate time for public examination of such legislation and public hearings thereon, and expressing the sense of the House that the Senate should similarly provide for such public examination and hearings. Sec. 3.-- H. Res. 221 Whereas the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996 (H. Con. Res. 67, 104th Congress) and the accompanying statement of managers contain reconciliation instructions to the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Commerce that assume reductions in spending on medicare of approximately $270,000,000,000 below what would be spent on medicare under current law during fiscal years 1996 through 2002; Whereas that conference report and statement of managers contain reconciliation instructions to the Committee on Commerce that assume reductions in spending on medicaid of approximately $182,000,000,000 below what would be spent on medicaid under current law during fiscal years 1996 through 2002; Whereas that conference report and statement of managers contain reconciliation instructions to the Senate Committee on Finance that assume reductions in spending on medicare and medicaid totalling $452,000,000,000 below what would be spent on those programs under current law during fiscal years 1996 through 2002; Whereas approximately 37,000,000 elderly and disabled Americans rely on medicare for their health insurance and health security; Whereas more than 36,000,000 women, children, and elderly and disabled Americans rely on medicaid for their health insurance and health security, and for protection against the cost of nursing home care; Whereas hundreds of thousands of doctors, hospitals, laboratories, and other health care providers participate in the medicare and medicaid programs and receive direct or indirect reimbursement for their services from the Federal Government in connection with these two programs; Whereas administrative and overhead costs are less than two percent of total program costs for medicare and less than four percent of total program costs for medicaid, far smaller percentages than any private sector health insurance enterprise currently in operation in the United States; Whereas achieving the level of reductions in medicare and medicaid assumed by the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996 cannot therefore be achieved solely by reducing waste, fraud, and abuse; Whereas achieving reductions of the magnitude contemplated by the budget resolution can only be accomplished by (1) increasing the payments required from women, children, elderly, and disabled beneficiaries, (2) reducing payments to physicians, hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care providers, (3) reducing coverage for current or future beneficiaries, or (4) some combination of the foregoing three strategies; Whereas the budget resolution requires committees to submit their reconciliation recommendations to the Committee on the Budget by September 22, 1995; Whereas as of the date of the introduction of this resolution, no legislative language to achieve the medicare and medicaid cuts contemplated by the budget resolution has been introduced or otherwise made public, so that members of the public and their Representatives in Congress have not had the benefit of adequate time to examine, analyze, and understand the impacts of the changes that will have to be proposed to achieve the contemplated reductions; Whereas the Congress should serve as a partner with the American people in addressing the Nation's health care needs and problems; Whereas with the exception of national security matters, there are few reasons for Congress to act behind closed doors in formulating policy that will directly and dramatically impact more than 73,000,000 Americans and their families and will indirectly impact every American; Whereas there is concern that the lack of public and media access to the formulation of changes in the existing medicare and medicaid laws in connection with the reconciliation process threatens the ability of all affected Americans and their Representatives to evaluate such changes adequately when they are finally made public; Whereas public hearings on the consequences for the United States and its health care system of any such changes in medicare and medicaid are necessary to educate the public who must live with those consequences and their Representatives in Congress who must act on the forthcoming medicare and medicaid changes: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That-- (1) any markup in the committees of the House of Representatives or any subcommittees thereof of any legislation changing existing law with respect to medicare or medicaid pursuant to the reconciliation instructions of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996 shall be preceded by a minimum of four weeks for public disclosure of the legislative text of such changes, during which time additional and thorough public hearings on such text shall be held; (2) no such legislation shall be considered in the House of Representatives until the requirements of paragraph (1) have been met; and (3) it is the sense of the House that the Senate should guarantee public and media access to and consideration of the legislative text of any changes to be considered in that body by adopting a similar schedule for public disclosure and hearings. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question, and I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I, too, yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a recorded vote, if ordered, may be taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, nays 173, not voting 20, as follows: [Roll No. 674] YEAS--241 Allard Archer Armey Bachus Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Ballenger Barr Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Bereuter Bilbray Bilirakis Bliley Blute Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bono Brownback Bryant (TN) Bunn Bunning Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Canady Castle Chabot Chambliss Chenoweth Christensen Chrysler Clinger Coble Coburn Collins (GA) Combest Condit Cooley Cox Crane Crapo Cremeans Cubin Cunningham Davis Deal DeLay Diaz-Balart Dickey Doolittle Dornan Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson [[Page H 9265]] English Ensign Everett Ewing Fawell Fields (TX) Flanagan Foley Forbes Fowler Fox Franks (CT) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frisa Funderburk Gallegly Ganske Gekas Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Goodlatte Goodling Goss Graham Greenwood Gunderson Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hamilton Hancock Hansen Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Heineman Herger Hilleary Hobson Hoekstra Hoke Horn Hostettler Houghton Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inglis Istook Johnson (CT) Johnson, Sam Jones Kanjorski Kasich Kelly Kim King Kingston Klink Klug Knollenberg Kolbe LaHood Largent Latham LaTourette Laughlin Lazio Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Lightfoot Linder Livingston LoBiondo Longley Lucas Manzullo Martini McCollum McCrery McDade McHugh McInnis McIntosh McKeon Metcalf Meyers Mica Miller (FL) Molinari Montgomery Moorhead Morella Murtha Myers Myrick Nethercutt Neumann Ney Norwood Nussle Oxley Packard Parker Paxon Petri Pombo Porter Portman Pryce Quillen Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Regula Riggs Roberts Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Rose Roth Roukema Royce Salmon Sanford Saxton Scarborough Schaefer Seastrand Sensenbrenner Shadegg Shaw Shays Shuster Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Solomon Souder Spence Stearns Stockman Stump Talent Tate Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Thomas Thornberry Tiahrt Torkildsen Upton Vucanovich Waldholtz Walker Walsh Wamp Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller White Whitfield Wicker Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL) Zeliff Zimmer NAYS--173 Abercrombie Ackerman Andrews Baesler Baldacci Barcia Barrett (WI) Becerra Beilenson Bentsen Berman Bevill Bishop Bonior Borski Boucher Brewster Browder Brown (CA) Brown (OH) Bryant (TX) Cardin Chapman Clay Clayton Clement Clyburn Coleman Collins (MI) Costello Coyne Cramer Danner de la Garza DeFazio DeLauro Dellums Deutsch Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Dooley Durbin Edwards Engel Eshoo Evans Farr Fattah Fazio Fields (LA) Filner Foglietta Ford Frank (MA) Frost Furse Gejdenson Gephardt Geren Gibbons Gonzalez Gordon Green Gutierrez Hall (OH) Harman Hilliard Hinchey Holden Hoyer Jackson-Lee Jacobs Johnson (SD) Johnson, E. B. Johnston Kaptur Kennedy (RI) Kennelly Kildee Kleczka LaFalce Lantos Levin Lewis (GA) Lincoln Lipinski Lofgren Lowey Luther Maloney Manton Markey Martinez Mascara Matsui McCarthy McDermott McHale McKinney McNulty Meehan Menendez Miller (CA) Mineta Minge Mink Mollohan Moran Nadler Neal Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Orton Owens Pallone Pastor Payne (VA) Pelosi Peterson (FL) Peterson (MN) Pickett Pomeroy Poshard Rangel Reed Richardson Rivers Roemer Roybal-Allard Rush Sabo Sanders Sawyer Schroeder Schumer Scott Serrano Skaggs Skelton Slaughter Spratt Stark Stenholm Stokes Studds Stupak Tanner Tejeda Thompson Thornton Thurman Torricelli Towns Traficant Velazquez Vento Visclosky Volkmer Ward Waters Watt (NC) Waxman Williams Wilson Wise Woolsey Wyden Wynn Yates NOT VOTING--20 Brown (FL) Collins (IL) Conyers Flake Hastings (FL) Hefner Jefferson Kennedy (MA) Meek Mfume Moakley Payne (NJ) Quinn Reynolds Schiff Sisisky Skeen Torres Tucker Watts (OK) {time} 1248 Ms. MOLINARI and Ms. McCARTHY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' Mr. RAHALL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.'' So the previous question was ordered. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members. This will be a 5-minute vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 375, nays 39, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 19, as follows: [Roll No. 675] YEAS--375 Abercrombie Allard Andrews Archer Armey Bachus Baesler Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Baldacci Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett (NE) Barrett (WI) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Beilenson Bentsen Bereuter Berman Bevill Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop Bliley Blute Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonior Bono Borski Boucher Brewster Browder Brownback Bryant (TN) Bryant (TX) Bunn Bunning Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Canady Cardin Castle Chabot Chambliss Chenoweth Christensen Chrysler Clayton Clement Clinger Clyburn Coble Coburn Coleman Collins (GA) Collins (MI) Combest Condit Cooley Costello Cox Cramer Crane Crapo Cremeans Cubin Cunningham Danner Davis de la Garza Deal DeFazio DeLauro DeLay Deutsch Diaz-Balart Dickey Dicks Dixon Doggett Dornan Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson Engel English Ensign Eshoo Everett Ewing Farr Fawell Fields (LA) Fields (TX) Flanagan Foglietta Foley Forbes Ford Fowler Fox Franks (CT) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frisa Frost Funderburk Furse Gallegly Ganske Gejdenson Gekas Gephardt Geren Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Gonzalez Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Green Greenwood Gunderson Gutierrez Gutknecht Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hamilton Hancock Hansen Harman Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Heineman Herger Hilleary Hinchey Hobson Hoekstra Hoke Holden Horn Hostettler Houghton Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inglis Istook Jackson-Lee Jacobs Johnson (CT) Johnson, E. B. Johnson, Sam Jones Kanjorski Kasich Kelly Kennedy (RI) Kennelly Kildee Kim King Kingston Kleczka Klink Klug Knollenberg Kolbe LaHood Largent Latham LaTourette Laughlin Lazio Leach Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Lightfoot Lincoln Linder Lipinski Livingston LoBiondo Lofgren Longley Lowey Lucas Luther Maloney Manzullo Martini Mascara Matsui McCarthy McCollum McCrery McDade McDermott McHugh McInnis McIntosh McKeon McKinney McNulty Meehan Menendez Metcalf Meyers Mica Miller (FL) Mineta Minge Mink Molinari Mollohan Montgomery Moorhead Moran Morella Murtha Myers Myrick Nadler Neal Nethercutt Neumann Ney Norwood Nussle Oberstar Obey Olver Orton Oxley Packard Pallone Parker Pastor Paxon Payne (VA) Pelosi Peterson (FL) Peterson (MN) Petri Pickett Pombo Pomeroy Porter Portman Poshard Pryce Quillen Quinn Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Reed Regula Richardson Riggs Rivers Roberts Roemer Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Rose Roth Roukema Roybal-Allard Royce Rush Salmon Sanders Sanford Sawyer Saxton Scarborough Schaefer Schiff Schumer Scott Seastrand Sensenbrenner Serrano Shadegg Shaw Shays Shuster Skaggs Skeen Skelton Slaughter Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Solomon Spence Spratt Stearns Stenholm Stockman Stokes Studds Stump Stupak Talent Tanner Tate Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Thomas Thompson Thornberry Thornton Thurman Tiahrt Torkildsen Torres Torricelli Traficant Upton Velazquez Visclosky Volkmer Vucanovich Waldholtz Walker Walsh Wamp Ward Waters Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller White Whitfield Wicker Williams Wilson Wise Wolf Woolsey Wyden Wynn Young (AK) Young (FL) Zeliff Zimmer NAYS--39 Ackerman Becerra Brown (CA) Brown (OH) Chapman Clay Coyne Dellums Dingell [[Page H 9266]] Dooley Durbin Edwards Evans Fattah Filner Frank (MA) Hilliard Hoyer Johnston Kaptur LaFalce Lantos Lewis (GA) Manton Markey Martinez McHale Miller (CA) Ortiz Owens Rangel Sabo Schroeder Stark Tejeda Towns Vento Waxman Yates ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1 Gibbons NOT VOTING--19 Brown (FL) Collins (IL) Conyers Doolittle Fazio Flake Hastings (FL) Hefner Jefferson Johnson (SD) Kennedy (MA) Meek Mfume Moakley Payne (NJ) Reynolds Sisisky Souder Tucker {time} 1257 Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.'' So the resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote Nos. 674 and 675 on House Resolution 224, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' on 674 and ``yea'' on 675. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 224 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2274. {time} 1259 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 consideration of the bill (H.R. 2274) to amend title 23, United States Code, to designate the National Highway System, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hansen in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] will be recognized for 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]. {time} 1300 Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that once again the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure brings to the floor of the House a bill with strong, overwhelming bipartisan support. It is an exciting bill, it is a crucial bill. This bill giving final approval to the new National Highway System will create for America in the 21st century what the Interstate System has done for America in the 20th century. The new National Highway System recognizes and identifies 159,000 miles which will be the top priority miles for America as we move into the next century of highway miles. While this represents only 4 percent of the total highway miles in America, it represents 40 percent of all the highway travel, 75 percent of truck traffic, and 80 percent of tourism travel. Indeed, every year we are experiencing on our highways a 3-percent increase in highway travel. If we compound that out, that means every 7 years about a 30-percent increase in highway travel. Beyond that, by the year 2000, we are told there will be a 28-percent increase in truck traffic on our highways. So there is a crucial need for identifying this new National Highway System, giving it the top priority. Of course, the original interstate, the 42,500 miles of the interstate, are the original backbone of this new system. What we are about here today is building assets for America. Indeed, it is crucial that we pass this, because if we do not pass it quickly and get to conference with the other body, then $6 billion a year will be withheld from our States, money that has to go out to improve our highways. Indeed, it is critical that we create this new National Highway System for economic growth for America. This system will be the backbone of the transportation system of America as we move into the next century, to move people and products more efficiently, more productively, more conveniently, and more safely. I might close by sharing with the body something that a young married man who brought his wife to Washington on January 4 of this year, with his little children, said on television. When they asked him why was he here to see the opening of the new Congress, he said, ``I just had to come and see it, because with the opening of the new Congress maybe there will be some changes. Maybe the Congress will get it right.'' Then he went on to say, ``The Federal Government, in my opinion, has not done anything right in the past 20 years.'' Then he paused, and he said, ``except build highways.'' I think across America there is strong bipartisan recognition that we need to build the infrastructure of this country so that this country can remain productive, so that this country can have our people traveling safely on our highways. For all of those reasons, I urge my colleagues to give strong support to this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2274 was approved by voice vote by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on September 8, 1995. The most important provision of the bill before us today is the approval of the National Highway System, a 160,000 mile network of our Nation's most important roads. Although NHS routes comprise only 4 percent of our Nation's public roads, it will carry over 40 percent of our Nation's traffic and more than 70 percent of our commercial truck traffic. The country has changed dramatically since the Interstate System was laid out more than 40 years ago, and the NHS will move us into the postinterstate era. Approval of H.R. 2274 will ensure continued Federal funding for these vital roads. H.R. 2274 also provides a comprehensive solution to the reduction in Federal highway funding that each State will experience next year due to section 1003 of ISTEA. According to the latest estimates from the Federal Highway Administration, this reduction could total as much as $3 billion, amounting to a nearly 13-percent across-the-board cut in each program. Unlike other proposals which have been put forth to address this situation, H.R. 2274 will fully restore funding for programs outside the obligation ceiling by utilizing available budget authority and, through the reprogramming of budget authority, will partially restore funding for programs subject to the obligation ceiling. It also will mitigate the effect of the remaining reduction by allowing States greater flexibility over a certain limited amount of unobligated program balances. The basic balance of funding control provided by ISTEA is retained in this bill since a State may transfer unobligated balances of urban suballocated funds, which are controlled by metropolitan planning organizations, only with the written concurrence of the metropolitan planning organization for that area. In addition, funds provided to States as part of the section 1003 restoration are subject to the urban suballocation in accordance with ISTEA. Finally, congestion mitigation and air quality funds must be spent in nonattainment areas, but can be used for any purpose--with all clean air requirements for transportation projects continuing to apply. In order to ease the burden on States, certain Federal mandates also are repealed, including a repeal of the requirement that States use rubberized asphalt, or crumb rubber, in a certain percentage of Federal-aid highway projects or face the loss of Federal highway funds. Although a prohibition on the implementation of the penalties has been included in annual appropriations bills over the past several years, H.R. 2274 provides for a permanent repeal. Also, the penalties for failure to implement various management systems are suspended until the reauthorization of ISTEA. During the committee consideration of H.R. 2274, two amendments were adopted which repeal two further Federal mandates. First, the national maximum speed limit and associated penalties are repealed. [[Page H 9267]] The power to set speed limits will be returned to the States as was the case prior to the energy crisis in 1974. The repeal amendment was adopted by the subcommittee and also was reaffirmed by the full committee by large, bipartisan votes. Second, an amendment was adopted by the full committee to repeal the current penalties imposed on States which do not enact universal motorcycle helmet laws. Again, it will be left up to each State to determine whether to enact such a law, as was the case prior to ISTEA. This amendment was also adopted by a wide bipartisan margin of 38 to 17. The remaining provisions in H.R. 2274 are, for the most part, minor and noncontroversial policy revisions or minor corrections to current law. I would note that certain trucking reform measures are also included in the bill which, again, are primarily very limited in scope and provided to certain segments of the trucking industry. These groups have worked with the committee over the past several months to demonstrate why certain regulations which are aimed primarily at long-haul, over-the-road truckers, may not be appropriate for certain other types of driving activities. In concluding, I want to thank our ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from California, Norm Mineta, for the assistance he has provided on this bill and the leadership he has provided to our committee on both sides of the aisle over his years in the Congress and as a senior member of the committee. As we know, Mr. Mineta will be leaving the Congress next month, although his involvement in transportation issues certainly will be continuing, and in some sense even deepen. His dedication and interest in improving the Nation's transportation system has been of great benefit to our country, and so, while we wish him well in his new endeavor, his departure will certainly be felt, and felt especially deeply on our committee, and by his colleagues. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], the ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, has once again provided valuable input on the development of the bill before us. Finally, of course, the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], has been instrumental in providing the critical leadership necessary to advance the national highway legislation. It is imperative that the House approve this bill so the required congressional approval of the National Highway System may be granted, so that the section 1003 restoration and mitigation provisions may be realized by the States, and so other improvements to our transportation programs may be enacted. I urge the House to approve H.R. 2274. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation, and I do urge my colleagues to do likewise when it comes to final passage. I join with the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], in commending all the work to bring this legislation together, including that of themselves, for their valuable patience in working with us, and willingness to compromise when such was necessary to move the process forward. I also pay tribute to our ranking minority member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]. I shall have more to say about him in a moment, but he has been, of course, one of the fathers of ISTEA, and this bill that we consider today is a product of that legislation. I say I am in support of the legislation, Mr. Chairman, because even though some of us cannot support every single provision of this bill, when all is said and done, the fundamental purpose of this legislation--the designation of a new National Highway System--is something that must be passed by this body and enacted into law in the very near future. Yes, we have had our differences on certain provisions of this bill. For instance, it would repeal the national speed limit. I, for one, will be offering amendments to address this issue. Yet, while I may not agree with what is contained in the committee bill on this issue, it is important to remember that this is a must pass piece of legislation, a number of accommodations have already been made to the minority since the bill was reported by the committee, and that today it is being debated under a free and open process that allows us to continue to pursue our concerns. This bill is must pass because at stake here is $5.2 billion in Federal highway funds to the States which will cease flowing on September 30th if we do not gain enactment, and an almost $3 billion in highway funds that will be lost due to a budgetary problem. At the same time, with this bill we are creating in this Nation a new, integrated network of highways, to be known as the National Highway System--the NHS--that will be the centerpiece of the post- Interstate construction era. In effect, what we are talking about here today are the crown jewels of America's highways. As I mentioned earlier, a number of accommodations have been reached on this bill since it was reported from the committee. As reported, it contained a provision that would have repealed Federal safety regulation of 40 percent of the truck traffic on the roads today. That provision has since been dropped from the bill. It also originally contained a provision known as the ``trigger'' which would have jeopardized the entire fiscal year 1997 Federal Highway and Transit Program. This provision, at my insistence, and the minority's insistence, has also been dropped from the bill we are considering today. And again, for those who continue to have concerns over the repeal of the national speed limit, or with the repeal of motorcycle helmet laws, as proposed by this bill, the democratic process is at work here today and we will have ample opportunity to address those issues. So again, once the debates are ended, I urge all Members to support final passage of this bill. In closing, I do, once again, commend the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], for their work on this measure. And I pay special personal and professional tribute to our dear friend, the gentleman from California, Norm Mineta, the ranking Democrat member on our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, who will leave this body next month. The gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] will be remembered by all of us for the many great things he has accomplished for his constituents and for the Nation as a whole during his service to the U.S. Congress. Today I take just a brief moment to salute him for his diligence to highway safety. His concern is not only for our public infrastructure, but for our environment, our future transportation policy, indeed, for our very future in this country, by ensuring that we have better roads and bridges, and improved safety for the people who travel upon them. Norm Mineta has served as chairman of four of our subcommittees on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and of course he has served as chairman of the full then Committee on Public Works and Transportation. A prime architect of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, Norm Mineta has made his mark on the bill before us today as well. It is, again, a measure that we should all support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to join in recognizing the gentleman from California, Norm Mineta, and the outstanding contributions he has made, not only to this committee and to his State of California, but to the Nation as a whole. I put an extensive statement in the Record Monday night relative to our distinguished colleague, and I would commend it to all of my colleagues. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins] for a colloquy. Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I have been concerned for some time over the growing shortage of qualified commercial truck drivers in this country. This stems from [[Page H 9268]] my own personal experience in the industry, as well as from my service on the Surface Transportation Subcommittee in the last Congress. Estimates are that there are 300,000 drivers needed in the industry per year over the next 10 years. As you know, several years ago Congress required that any person operating a commercial vehicle must have a commercial drivers license [CDL] issued by his or her State of domicile. According to the Federal Highway Administration, this has had two important impacts on driver training: First, it has limited the actual behind-the-wheel experience for potential drivers, which is critical to effective driver training. Second, in addition, if a driver wishes to move temporarily to another State to undergo driver training, he or she cannot obtain either a learner's permit or a CDL because of the domicile requirements previously mentioned. {time} 1315 Recognizing these problems, the Federal Highway Administration issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 1990 to correct the situation. However, due to more pressing matters, the action was not finalized. I understand that FHWA is now in the process of pursuing the issue, due to increased interest and the need for truck drivers. And I think it is important to note that not only has the Federal Highway Administration recognized the problem; but the industry, represented by the American Trucking Associations has also supported a change. For the purpose of expediting this rulemaking, I would simply like to ask the chairman whether you believe it appropriate for the Federal Highway Administration to address this issue, particularly with regard to issuing learners' permits. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would respond to my friend, I certainly do think it is appropriate. The Federal Government has already required issuance of CDL's by the States. I am pleased Federal Highways is addressing this situation, and I fervently hope that they will move very expeditiously on this rulemaking. Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentleman. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, because he has devoted so much of his career to improved transportation policy in this country, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking minority member. (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, today, two critical problems threaten the Nation's infrastructure and transportation program. First, if Congress does not designate the National Highway System by October 1 of this year, $5.2 billion of transportation funds will not go to the States. Second, because of an arcane budget scorekeeping rule, our highway programs face an estimated 13 percent, or $2.7 billion, cut across the board next year. The bill before the House today addresses both these issues: It designates the NHS and fixes the budget problem. Mr. Chairman, I did support the bill as reported by the Transportation Committee. During committee consideration of the bill, several controversial safety amendments were adopted. When I considered these amendment, together with provisions already in the bill which were troublesome, I concluded that the bill no longer represented a viable means to designate the NHS and I could not in good conscience support it. However, since reporting the bill, our committee leadership has worked together long and hard to work out a compromise and refocus this bill on designating the NHS, and I want to particularly commend Chairman Shuster, our very fine friend, Chairman Petri, and the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Rahall, for their long, hard efforts to reach this compromise. We all recognize the importance of this bill and have worked hard to minimize the kind of controversies which could impede its progress, even where that meant accepting policies which were contrary to each of our own positions, but really which were necessary to move the bill forward on a bipartisan basis. The result of all of our efforts has been a better bill. Like any compromise, if perfectly reflects none of our views. Each of us can say there are many things in this bill we like and things we do not like. For instance, this compromise bill does not include the truth in budgeting provisions which the committee adopted and which I strongly support. These provisions would have taken the transportation trust funds off-budget and rededicated them to their original purpose. However, this bipartisan compromise bill also does not include the so-called trigger provision which I strongly oppose. The trigger provision would have sequestered fiscal year 1997 highway and transit funds in the hopes of forcing the reauthorization of ISTEA next year. In my opinion, such a provision would break our commitment to the States and needlessly create uncertainty at a time when we should be rebuilding our highways, bridges, and transit systems. In addition, the reported bill included a provision which I strongly opposed which would have waived all safety standards for commercial vehicles between 10,000 and 26,000 pounds. Under this blanket waiver of truck safety standards, nearly 40 percent of all currently regulated trucks on the road would have been completely exempt from important Federal safety requirements such as driver qualifications and drug and alcohol prohibitions. However, again working together on a bipartisan basis, the en bloc amendment which the chairman of our committee will offer today includes a somewhat improved version on this issue. Under the new provision, the Secretary of Transportation will establish a pilot program to exempt motor carriers of regulatory requirements only, only if, after normal notice and comment, he finds that the carrier would have safety programs that achieve a level of safety equal to or greater than if they complied with the regulations. While this compromise language is not perfect, and I remain worried about opening the flood gates to truck safety exemptions. I believe that the provision in this en bloc amendment is much improved from its original form in the original legislation. Despite these many improvements to the reported bill, the compromise bill still includes several controversial highway safety amendments which I adamantly oppose. This bill would repeal the Federal speed limit and allow States to have no speed limit at all if they wished. I would effectively repeal the motorcycle helmet requirement. And it would waive a variety of truck safety standards for specific industries. I believe that these provisions seriously threaten both our Nation's highway safety and the likelihood that Congress will be able to approve the NHS in a timely manner. Therefore, although I support this bill overall, there are provisions in this bill which I strongly oppose. like the safety amendments, and which I expect the full House will revisit today. As we discuss these safety issues today and amid all the rhetoric about States' rights, let us not forget why we are here: To designate the National Highway System and to fix a budget problem. Let us not allow this bill to include provisions which threaten these important objectives. If I might also ask of the subcommittee Chair, or the ranking member, indulgence in a little more time, I want to thank again the members of the committee who have expressed their generous comments about my work. But one thing about the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is that it has always been a very strongly bipartisan committee. Whether it is the professional staff or the members, we have always tried to make sure public policy is in the forefront. So I would like to thank everyone for the courtesies that have been extended to me in the 20 years plus that I have been in the House. I particularly want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], whom I will miss very much. We have had a long career of working together on this committee. Mr. Chairman, I salute you and thank you very, very much for your working with all of us. Then of course, to the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], [[Page H 9269]] who chaired this specific subcommittee, and to my very good friend, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall]. I will cherish your friendship and your advice and counsel you have given to me over these long years. Of course, it goes without saying I am going to miss especially my seat mate, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. We came together in 1974. We have been very close personal friends. We have both gone through some very troubling times in the House, and we have counseled each other on a personal basis as well as on a professional basis. Jim, I will always hold you very close and dear to me. Of course, to my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], again, a very, very close and wonderful friend. So I leave without regret. I am going to miss everyone, but by the same token, I know that this committee will carry on its very fine work. Again, I want to thank all the members of the committee as well as the professional staff for their wonderful work. Ken House has been with me for all these years, and there is no one who probably knows this title of the United States Code better than Ken House, and he is sort of like a real reference book. Ken, I want to just thank you again for all the hours you have spent and the time I have called you on the phone at 11 at night and bothered you at home, but again, thank you very much, and to all of you, thank you. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the gentleman from West Virginia for yielding me this time, the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Surface Water and Environment, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], our outstanding ranking member of our committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]. Let me simply say, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] has been a great leader of this committee and in this Congress and a great American. I shall remember forever all the excellent work that was done on the ISTEA legislation a few years back, the long hours, the difficult hours, and difficult issues. We got a piece of legislation through that this country can be very proud of, innovative, advancing our transportation system, and it would not have happened without the strong leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]. I shall also miss him as the ranking member, and while we had great successes with the ISTEA legislation on this side of the aisle, our successes were not so great in the Clean Water Act, but his leadership and friendship and guidance on that bill were extremely important to me and valuable to this process, and I shall miss him very, very much. I wish him great success in all he does, and I know he will be extremely successful. Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely critical to our Nation's transportation system to have the National Highway System designated so that the States can have their fiscal year 1996 NHS funds. I fully and strongly support the designation of the National Highway System. I also believe we must correct the 10-0-3 problem that will result in an unfortunate reduction in the Nation's Surface Transportation Program. However, the bill that is before us does much more than those two essential actions. This bill is being used as a backdoor means of rewriting the compromises that made the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 a major breakthrough in transportation policy. I am concerned that this bill is anti-urban, anti-metropolitan and anti-environment. In recycling funds to solve the 10-0-3 problem, the bill provides another avenue for States to pressure MPO's into allowing STP funds that are attributed to that area to be used outside that area. What is the purpose of this attempt to rewrite the carefully constructed ISTEA compromise? The bill also allows Sea-Mack funds to be used for purposes other than to meet air quality standards or to provide air quality benefits, which is the requirement under current law. We can solve the 10-0-3 problem without rewriting ISTEA, without changing the rules for using the STP money and without setting up new procedures to transfer money out of metropolitan areas. I am also concerned about section 301 which makes a larger cut in operating assistance for large transit systems than for smaller transit systems. If we are going to cut operating assistance, then all systems should bear this cut equally. The provision is unfair to the riders of metropolitan area transit systems who pay their fares just like the riders of the smaller systems. Unfortunately, it appears that the critics of transit operating assistance believe the cuts should only come from certain systems, not all systems. This bill makes it harder for metropolitan areas to solve their transportation problems. Transit operating assistance will be cut, resulting in higher fares and less service which will force people off the transit systems and into their cars. Then we are allowing STP money to be transferred out of the urban areas and allowing congestion mitigation money to be used for other purposes. These changes are unnecessary retreats from the first-ever recognition in ISTEA of the special needs of metropolitan areas. These changes are bad transportation policy. Mr. Chairman, these provisions raise important questions about the direction of our national transportation policy. I hope that some--or all--of these problems can be corrected as the bill works its way through the process. {time} 1330 Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose]. (Mr. ROSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], the ranking member, for yielding this time to me, and I just want to compliment the chairman and the members of this committee for this bill. The section in this bill that deals with identification of high- priority corridors specifies a route of Interstate 73 and Interstate 74 through North Carolina that is the culmination of a tremendous amount of work that has been done by Members of Congress and especially the North Carolina Board of Transportation. It could not have happened without the good ear and the good help of the full committee, the chairmen of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, and I want to thank them and urge my colleagues to strongly support this legislation. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the current ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on Aviation, and any day, or any hour now, to be the new ranking member of our full committee. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. I shall vote for the bill on final passage, notwithstanding the outcome of votes which we will have on highway safety issues. I want to make it very clearly I urge all Members on our side, all Members of the House, to support this legislation. I want to compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] on his first highway bill, not exactly his first highway bill, but his first as chairman. He has been a partner with us on this side of the aisle for many years as we have crafted highway legislation. He has been a partner in developing what is the world's finest highway system bar none anywhere, in any country, and I know that his continued vigilance and enthusiasm for the highway program will ensure that we stay on track of maintaining the Nation's portfolio of highways, bridges, and seeing to the future growth needs of America which are founded upon our Nation's highways and bridges. [[Page H 9270]] Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, I do have some reservations about this legislation. It is in vogue in this 104th Congress to turn responsibilities back to the State or to give States new responsibilities, but the highway program is unique. On the interstate highway; 90 percent of the funds are Federal, 10 percent State. The noninterstate, 80 percent with matching funds provided by the State or local governments. The Federal Government raises the money, but States decide where the roads go, except for the Interstate System, which was thrashed out at the national level in consultation with State governments, and we are at the same point again, designating the post- Interstate Highway System, the National Highway System. Unfortunately, however, Mr. Chairman, I think this legislation surrenders more authority to States for decisions on highways than is proper, than should be the appropriate balance of Federal and State responsibilities and one of the reasons Members over the last 10 years have come to the chairman and ranking member on the former Committee on Public Works and Transportation, now Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, with complaints, is that States have not been responsive, sufficiently, to local concerns. They say: ``This highway or high-priority item in my district is not being built.'' The fundamental reason was the State made a decision not to do it or not to do it for 10, or 15, or 20 years, and ultimately we took on the responsibility of including in national legislation specifically designated highway segments that were of national significance and said to the State, ``You shall build these segments.'' I think in a couple of years we will be back here again with complaints from Members saying the Governor, or the State Highway Department, is not responsive to my constituents. They are not building the roads that are high priority, necessary for economic growth, progress, not repairing the bridges, and would we, please, put something in the highway bill to do it, or they will go to the Committee on Appropriations and ask them to do it. Mr. Speaker, that is the reservation I have about this bill as a policy matter, and I hope that in time we will address that matter and focus more authority at the national level as I think Members should have input because, after all, these roads go through our districts, serve our constituents, our communities, our local economic growth. The other concern that I have about the legislation, and I will offer an amendment to deal with it, is the safety issue. This amendment will focus on gathering information. It is not a new mandate. It is not a new requirement. It does not require any cost of the States. It does not take money away nor give them incentives to do anything. It just says, ``Gather information with the tools you already have about crashes, who pays, who gets hurt in crashes, how long are people hospitalized, what are the economic consequences locally, what are the consequences for health care providers.'' Mr. Chairman, if we are going to take actions to diminish national highway safety standards, then the public ought to know what the consequences are, and we ought to have that information gathered so that at the appropriate time we can make the right policy judgments on highway safety. Before concluding though, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take this opportunity to pay very special tribute to our departing former chairman, the current ranking member, my friend, my seatmate of nearly 21 years, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]. We unveiled his portrait in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on Monday evening. There was a beautiful outpouring of praise. At the appropriate time I shall have that included in the Congressional Record because those words need to be memorialized. There is no person of greater integrity, commitment to public service, commitment to duty, commitment to fellow legislators, than the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]. He has been a personal friend, a professional friend, a person impeccable integrity who leaves an aura of great distinction upon this body. Mr. Chairman, when asked, on the day he made his announcement of leaving the Congress, what he would like to be remembered for, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] simply said, ``For all the people in my district, that I never forget their names.'' There is no greater example of public service and of caring for people than that remark or than this person, my friend, Mr. Mineta. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett], my congressional neighbor. (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, a sharply worded Cumberland Times editorial about U.S. Route 220 in western Maryland hit the highway nail right on the head: I quote: ``U.S. Route 220 North is arguably the most dangerous stretch of highway in the (tristate) area * * * (its) s-curves make the road an obstacle course fraught with danger.'' In addition to highlighting the frightening hazards of 220's 3-mile twist in Alleghany County, the Times editorial rightfully noted the value of an improved Route 220 to the economic development of a region ripe with promise and perfect for business growth. The inclusion of Route 220 as a designated highway in our national roadway network will serve as the foundation upon which the region can build a better 220 and, consequently, a brighter tomorrow for all those dependent upon it. Before today, any substantial discussion in western Maryland about the overall economic development of the tristate region was hindered by a lack of regionwide attention to--and funding for--Route 220. With this comprehensive bill and thanks to the effective leadership of Committee Chairman Bud Shuster and Maryland's State Highway Administration, we're seeing Route 220 get what it certainly deserves: a designated place in our National Highway System. The measure before the House today appropriately includes the full stretches of Route 220--in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia--as key highway links in the National Highway System. As a result, planned improvements for Route 220 will receive Federal funding priority. In the long history of Route 220, this is good news, very good news. The improvement of Route 220 north of Cumberland is not only important to Maryland but also to our neighbors in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Route 220 continues into these States from Maryland. Maryland--under the impressive guidance of Transportation Secretary David Winstead, Highway Administrator Hal Kassoff, and House Speaker Cas Taylor--has authorized funding for right-of-way acquisition. Construction targets for Maryland's section of the road are within reach. For Route 220 to realize its full potential, it is imperative-- as Speaker Taylor as consistently noted--that West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania join forces to make Route 220 an asset to the region rather than a hurdle to development and safety. Improvements to Route 220 in any one of the three States must be matched by corresponding improvements to Route 220 in the others. I believe that this legislation is a terrific catalyst for such change, cooperation, and progress. I look forward to the continuation of a Route 220 coalition dedicated to the completion of 220 improvements throughout the tristate region. I will soon be meeting with my colleagues from West Virginia and Pennsylvania in an effort to lend whatever assistance we can to the project. At this juncture--and on behalf of those who share our interest in Route 220--I want to commend Chairman Shuster and urge the House to adopt the National Highway System language as detailed in the bill. The State of Maryland has advised me that more than 7,500 vehicles face the Route 220 minefield daily. That number is predicted to double by 2015. In the name of safety and for the benefit of the region, it is essential that we give Route 220 the attention it deserves and