The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title III? amendment offered by mr. rahall Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 27. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. Rahall: Strike section 348. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] will be recognized for 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall]. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us contains a provision that would simply repeal the national speed limit. Plain and simple, it repeals the national speed limit. Under this provision, then, the States could set no speed limit whatsoever. No speed limit whatsoever. Or [[Page H 9288]] they could establish a speed limit of 100 miles per hour or whatever. Despite the fact that proponents of eliminating the national speed limit often couch their proposal in terms of this being a matter of States' rights, the bottom line, in my view, is that it is a matter of saving lives; and that, my colleagues, should take precedence over any of these idealistic assumptions over the role of State and Federal Governments. For let there be no doubt in anyone's mind, the effort to repeal the national speed limit represents nothing other than an attempt to increase speed limits. Today, Mr. Chairman, 1,000 people are slaughtered each month on our Nation's highways in speed-related crashes, That is 12,000 deaths each year due to traveling at high speeds. This, I say to my colleagues, is under the existing 55 mile per hour national speed limit with 65 possible on rural interstate segments. It should be obvious that the death toll will rise once the States begin increasing the maximum speed limit under the provision of this bill. The enactment of the bill's repeal provision would, in effect, turn our Nation's highways into killing fields. It will turn our highways into killing fields. I say to my colleagues, this is not a matter of State rights. It is a matter of human rights. The Federal Government paid 90 percent of the cost of constructing the Interstate System, and it still pays that amount to maintain it. There is, as such, a justifiable Federal role in ensuring the safety of those traveling on this system. In addition, the interstates are just that, they are interstates. They are not intrastates. Cars traveling to the borders of States do not bounce around and go back and stay within that State. They travel across State lines. We are talking about a Federal responsibility here. People traveling across State lines should not be subject to the dictates of any individual State. So, again, I hardly see where a matter involving interstate transportation can be viewed as an intrusion of States rights; and I would urge that this type of rhetoric that we will hear during debate on this amendment be dismissed outright. For these reasons, the amendment I am offering would strike the proposed repeal of the national speed limit; and it would maintain existing law. I might add as well, Mr. Chairman, that Members have before them a letter from our Secretary, very fine Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Pena, stating the administration's opposition to removal of the national speed limit. I say in addition to that fact we have in this Chamber today the administrator of our Federal Highway Administration, Mr. Rodney Slater, who has been very helpful to us in this legislation and will continue to be as we go on down the process. And he, as well, has expressed his very strong concerns about the removal of the national speed limit. I would urge acceptance of this amendment, which returns to the law as we know it today, a law that has saved lives. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment which would strike from H.R. 2274 the repeal of the national maximum speed limit and associated penalties. We have already seen what happens when motorists believe that a particular speed limit is too low for the conditions of a road--they exceed the limit. How many Americans drive faster than 55 miles per hour? The recent increase to 65 miles per hour on some of our rural interstates simply made legal the status quo--we already were driving 65. Let me be clear that if we remove the national maximum speed limit, we will not find ourselves with no speed limits on any roads as you might think from listening to some. The States will step in and take up this responsibility which is the way it should be. A one-size-fits-all approach has proven to be very frustrating from many States and motorists. What is an appropriate speed for the urban Northeast may not be appropriate for certain areas in Montana, or Texas, or other more desolate regions in the country. I cannot understand why some seem to believe that only Washington is capable of setting speed limits. Do we really believe that States are not capable of doing this, that the States do not care just as much, if not more, for the safety and well-being of motorists in their States? By repealing the national maximum speed limit, we will once again allow the States, based on their own intimate knowledge of particular road designs, conditions, location, and other relevant factors, to determine the appropriate speed limit for each of their roads. I believe the States are capable of this, that they are concerned about the safety of their citizens and that they will act responsibly and in the best interests of motorists. I urge the House to defeat this amendment. {time} 1400 Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have noted the ranking minority member's opposition to this amendment, Mr. Chairman, but I know that we had this issue debated in full committee, and we had, as I am sure we do on the floor, the very strong support for this amendment and vehement opposition to lifting the speed limit from the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and I know he will make his position known before the day is over. Mr. Chairman, 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, I rise in strong support of the Rahall amendment. Quite simply, this amendment is a lifesaver. And, it is critical to controlling taxes and government spending. My colleagues opposing this amendment will tell you that repealing the national speed limit does not actually raise a single speed limit. In fact, at least five States already have laws that immediately increase their speed limits, if we repeal the national limit. These very same States already have some of the highest rates of speed- related deaths in the country. For example, Oklahoma's speed limit will increase to 70 miles per hour on interstates and 65 on secondary roads. Oklahoma already has the highest percentage of speed-related deaths in the country, 48 percent of all highway deaths, with current maximums in place. Imagine what the percentage will be with a 70-mile-per-hour limit. In California, my own home State, where legislators are already talking about speed limits up to 70 miles per hour, 40 percent of all highway deaths are speed- related. Also, we can look at the situation before Congress enacted the national maximum speed limit. Only one State, New York, had a 55 mile per hour speed limit. Most States had limits of 70 miles per hour or greater. Two States, Montana and Nevada, had no limit whatsoever. And, we had over 54,000 highway deaths. When the national limit took effect, highway deaths dropped by over 9,000, the very first year, 16 percent compared to a 2 percent drop in vehicle miles traveled. My colleagues will argue that cars are safer today and therefore, higher speeds are safer than they used to be. That may be true, but no car has yet been built that will fully protect the occupants. Higher speeds increase the likelihood of a crash. Stopping distances are longer, and impact speeds are greater. When speed limits increased on some rural interstates after the 1987 change, hundreds more fatalities occurred, causing nearly $1 billion in additional costs. Moreover, as speed increases, the impact force increases exponentially, increasing the likelihood of serious injury. This relationship holds no matter what safety equipment is on the car. It is a fundamental law of physics that this Congress cannot repeal. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that raising the speed limit just to 65 miles per hour on all roads will lead to more than 6,400 additional deaths and nearly $20 billion higher total costs, every year. That is with the safety equipment on today's cars. This bill will result in far more deaths and far greater costs, because it would allow speed limits of far more than 65 miles per hour. [[Page H 9289]] My colleagues opposing this amendment will argue that this issue is not about death and injury. They say that States and local governments can understand the body counts, just as well as Federal elected officials. They present this as simply a states' rights issue. But the truth is that the results of repealing all Federal speed limits are not confined within the boundaries of the States that raise their speed limits. These results are not confined to the individuals who drive higher speeds. We all pay. The current number of speed- related crashes already costs $24 billion, every year. We pay through higher taxes to fund Medicare and Medicaid for those who need long-term care due to severe injuries. We pay through higher prices for goods and services, because employers pay for sick leave for their employees and lost productivity. Our actions are not self-contained. We are members of communities, in which individual actions impose costs and burdens on others. This amendment will impose substantial new burdens on taxpayers--its that simple. When one State raises its speed limits, taxpayers in all States will pay the costs. The original purpose of today's bill is to designate the National Highway System, roads of national significance. No one is questioning this concept, roads of national significance. No one here is arguing that the Federal Government should stop funding highway programs. To then argue that there is no national interest in the safety of these very same roads makes no sense. Therefore, I must strongly urge my colleagues to support the Rahall amendment. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most important amendments we are going to consider on this National Highway System legislation. In this amendment we are dealing with the lives, livelihoods, and family life of drivers on America's highways. Those who are involved in accidents such as the driver of the car that caused the accident or the driver or passenger in another vehicle that was struck by the errant driver suffer long-term consequences, loss of mobility, loss of income, high cost of hospitalization, and, of course the ultimate tragedy, loss of life. Several years ago when we first considered in this Chamber during my service in the Congress legislation to extend the drive 55 highway speed limit, I happened to be out in the southern part of my district meeting with Minnesota Highway Patrol officers. One of them had just come back from a tragic accident, a high speed accident on the highway. I said: ``the day after tomorrow we are going to consider the matter of limiting speed on America's highways and keepin the drive 55 limit in place.'' This officer looked me square in the eye with the burden of that tragedy still in his mind and blood on his uniform, and he said, It is at speeds of 75 and 80 and 85 when we see the torn aortas, and you cannot put them back together again, when the victim is lying there bleeding uncontrollably in a tangled mass of steel and you cannot cut him out soon enough to save the life. And if you allow at the national level the States to raise the speed limits, they will, and we will, out on the highway, be seeing more deaths and more tragedies and more broken families and more broken lives. Our former chairman, the late Jim Howard, in the debate in committee and on the House floor, said there are few occasions in your career in public service when you have an opportunity to save 5,000 lives a year. This is one of those opportunities. We can save a minimum of 5,000 lives by keeping the highway speed limit in place. I know that the thrust and the drive in this 104th Congress is to give States more responsibility, turn these authorities over to them, and that Congress should not set national standards, limits, requirements. But we, too, are responsible at the national level for what happens on America's highways. We, too, pass legislation. We impose the fuel tax, we set the conditions under which our National Highway System is constructed and operated, and we have a responsibility to the same people in our respective States that our Governors and State legislators have. My vote in this Chamber is not relevant just to Minnesota; it is relevant to the whole country, as is the vote of every other Member in this Chamber. I have a responsibility to safety on the highways in every State, not just in Minnesota. At the dawn of the interstate era, when the Congress was considering establishing the national system of interstate and defense highways, the death toll on America's highways was going up at such a rate that it was estimated, if we did not build such a system of safe highways, in 15 years we would be killing 108,000 people a year on the Nation's highways. That was in 1956. The death toll went up to as high as 57,000 on the Nation's highways, until the energy crisis caused us, for reasons of energy conservation, to lower the speed limit to 55. Then we found the hidden benefit, that lowering the speed limit, as everybody knew and suspected but did not have the public courage to act upon, would save lives. And it did. Dramatically, the speed limit caused a lowering of the death rate. As chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I held hearings on highway safety, on roadside hazards that are built into the highway system that cause deaths when a person loses control of a car. We have made a great deal of progress in removing roadside hazards, in building safer highways, hazards that may occur when a person falls asleep at the wheel, or is otherwise distracted, caught in a snowstorm or rainstorm, and leaves the traveled roadway, that may cause injury or death. Instead of being impaled on a light pole, we have breakaway light poles. Instead of crashing into a metal barrier that decapitates the driver of the car, we now have the New Jersey barrier that guides the vehicle back on to the roadway. We have about reached the limit of what we can do in building safer highways, safer bridges, educating the driving public to drive more safely. There are just some things that must be imposed upon people, and a speed limit is one of them. Now, I have heard the discussion earlier today that well, you know, at 55, people are passing you, they are going 65, and all the 65 speed limit did was to ratify what people were doing on the highways. If you set it at 65, the highway patrol officers will tell you, people will drive another 10 miles an hour faster on the roadways. {time} 1415 Just a couple of weeks ago, before we began this debate, I met with highway patrol officers in Minnesota. They told me the same thing as others did 15 years ago: ``If you raise the speed limit, people will again drive 10 or more miles per hour above it.'' Keeping the speed limit in place is a brake upon people's drive, ambition to go ever faster and risk their lives and those of other innocent people on America's roadways. In the name of States rights, in the name of human rights, in the name of family rights, keep the speed limit in place. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster]. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise today in opposition to the Rahall amendment. There are many statistics that we can look at. They tell us that approximately 30 percent of the fatalities are committed by those who are speeding. We will also be told that approximately 70 percent of the drivers on the road are speeding. If we use those numbers, it would mean the 30 percent who are not speeding are involved in 70 percent of the fatalities. We can use all kinds of numbers for all kinds of things. The national speed limit was put in place in 1973 to conserve fuel. It had nothing to do with safety. Cars have been upgraded significantly since then, highways have been upgraded significantly since then. So I submit that the national speed limit is not something that is important today. What is important is States rights. What is important is that the States have the right to make the selection of the speeds appropriate to them. [[Page H 9290]] There is not a lot of commonality between the roads in New York and Texas, or New Jersey and Oklahoma. There is quite a lot of different in density, in topography, and the quality of the roads themselves. That is quite different. However, we are not raising the speed limit today. There is nothing in this bill that raises the speed limit. What we are saying is we are giving the States the opportunity to determine for themselves what is in their best interests in their States. I happen to believe that those in the Oklahoma legislature or the Texas legislature or the Nevada legislature, and their State department of transportation, have a better understanding of their roads than some bureaucrat in Washington. Those of us who vote for the Rahall amendment today, who vote to keep a national speed limit, are saying that our State legislatures, our State departments of transportation, do not have the sense or the ability to determine what is in their best interests. I happen to believe they do have. I believe that they have every bit of interest in safety that we have, and I believe that they can do it. I urge Members to oppose the Rahall amendment. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response to my dear friend and fine colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma, this particular Member does not mean to cast any aspersions on our State legislatures whatsoever. I did not have the honor of serving in such a body, but I know that they have the best interests of their States at heart, that they serve with a maximum amount of ability and talent to make the right decisions. However, what we are doing here today, if we remove a national speed limit, is allowing in some States, without any decision of their State legislators, for that speed limit in that State to automatically increase, or not even exist, not even have a speed limit. So, in effect, without any decision of the State legislature or reconvening of that State legislature, we have no speed limit then in those States. Montana and Nevada, for example, had no speed limit prior to enactment of the national 55 miles per hour speed limit. Granted, the original purpose for the enactment of this speed limit was the oil embargo in the mid-1970's, the desire to conserve fuel. That turned out to be an empty threat. Today, we are importing more oil than we were at that time, yet we have no threat of an oil embargo. And even if we were, I submit, it would be another empty threat. If that is what it takes to save American lives, then I say let all of these empty oil threats come from whatever country wants to issue them against the United States. If that causes the U.S. Congress to save American lives, I submit that we ought to maintain this 55 miles per hour speed limit. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski]. (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia which will save lives and prevent thousands of needless deaths on our Nation's highways. The issue before us is not whether speed limits save lives--there is no question that they do. We have 20 years of evidence to show that-- from speed limit laws that were passed to save energy, not to save lives. The issue is whether we are willing to take the actions that will save lives--thousands of lives. According to the National Academy of Sciences, the national speed limit law saves 2,000 to 4,000 lives each year. Is saving 5 or 10 minutes on a trip worth an extra 2,000 to 4,000 lives every year along with countless injuries? How many lives and injuries is it worth to save those extra few minutes on the road? Based on the National Academy of Sciences study, the national maximum speed limit law has saved 40,000 to 80,000 lives in the past two decades. Eighty thousand people is a lot of people--it is almost like wiping out the entire population of our State capital of Harrisburg. There are very few other areas where we can look at laws and say they have direct impact on whether people live or die--but the national speed limit is one of them. If we decide to eliminate the speed limit laws, we will be choosing death for thousands of our citizens every year. When speeds increase, people have less control of their cars and crashes are more damaging. There is a much greater chance of an accident resulting in death or serious injury at 65 than at 55. There is an even greater chance of death or serious injury at 75. There should be no question that speeds will increase if the speed limit is increased. There are people who will always drive at 10 miles per hour more than the speed limit, no matter what the limit is. There are also people who won't increase their speeds--increasing the differences in the rates of speed on the road and leading to even more accidents. Mr. Chairman, the speed limit was not intended to be a safety measure but, through a combination of circumstances we stumbled on a measure that has been extremely effective in saving lives. It would be a tragic mistake to repeal that life-saving measure now and set in motion a process that could result in thousands more Americans dying every year. I urge support of the amendment by the gentleman from West Virginia. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Madison, WI [Mr. Klug]. Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, last Saturday I took my 6-year-old to a soccer game at Madison, pulled off the road on which we live to get onto the Beltway that surrounds the city of Madison, and was struck by three facts. First of all, the speed limits on the highway I had just driven onto were set by the Federal Government. If I was speeding on that highway, it would be the State of Wisconsin who would pull me over, and if I had to go to court to fight a ticket I would end up in a State of Wisconsin court. But here it is, the Federal Government telling the State of Wisconsin what the speed limit has to be outside of Madison, WI. If Brett and I had been on a motorcycle instead of a car, we would have soon discovered that in the next couple of months, the State of Wisconsin would have had to pass a law to throw out a motorcycle education program we have had in place and put it with a motorcycle helmet law about to come down from the Federal Government; except if we prevail today, we will stop that, too. Wisconsin used to have a motorcycle helmet law in place. We took it away and repealed it with an education program, and we now have fewer serious accidents, fewer serious accidents, and we have fewer fatalities than States that have helmet laws in place. However, here is Washington, telling us the speed limit and discussing helmet laws. As I drove onto that highway, there was a sign that said how far it was from Madison to Milwaukee. It is about 72 miles. But there was a mandate from the Federal Government last year that said every county had to replace those mile signs with metric measurements. This is 500 yards down the road, and the Federal Government is telling me everything I can do along the way. I think the provisions in this bill which repeal the speed limit and which repeal the mandates from Washington on the helmet laws are absolutely right on target. In fact, from my mind, it does not go quite far enough. I have 40,000 students at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. We, the Federal Government, tell the State what the drinking age has to be. I think you do to a 19-year-old who drinks and drives, what you do to a 39-year-old who drinks and drive, you take their license away. If it is necessary, you prosecute them and put them in jail. So we have done the right thing, we have gone two-thirds of the way, and we should go one step a little bit farther, an also give States the discretion to make decisions about drinking ages as well. I just walked over from a Committee on Commerce hearing where we are [[Page H 9291]] about to give the States the authority to run Medicaid programs. I think that is absolutely appropriate. It should be a State decision. The Senate moved yesterday to turn many of the decisions involved in welfare reform over to the States. If we are smart enough to run Medicaid, which is the biggest item in a State Budget, and if the State governments are smart enough to run welfare reform, I think somehow the State capitol in Madison and capitols across this country have the judgment to make their own decision about speed limits in their own States. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman, from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren. Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The question I have is what makes anyone think that someone in Washington, DC, knows better as to how fast you should drive between Fort Worth, TX, and Abilene, TX, than does the State senator or State representative from Abilene? The only two reasons that would justify such a conclusion is that the person in Washington, DC, known more about that stretch of road than does that State representative, or perhaps that the person in Washington cares more about the lives of Texans than does that State representative from Texas. Mr. Chairman, I content that neither is true. I know Texans know Texas roads better than does any resident of Washington, DC. I know Texans care as much about the health and safety of their fellow Texans as does anyone in Washington DC. After all, when they cast a vote in Austin, TX, they are voting for the safety of their own children and their friends' children. It is not some bureaucrat in Washington, DC, making a decision about strangers 2,000 miles away. With all due respect to those who support this amendment, roads in the hills of West Virginia or New York or Pennsylvania do not look like roads in west Texas. Those from the Northeast do not know what flat is, I can assure you. If it is safe to drive 55 anywhere in West Virginia, I can assure the Members, it is equally safe to drive faster than that in west Texas. Mr. Chairman, let the experts make this decision, the experts in Texas, the experts in West Virginia, the experts in California, the experts in Montana, the experts in Minnesota. This is a very diverse country. Let us look to the wisdom of the people who live on those roads, who drive those roads, to make those decisions. Washington does not know best. The people in Texas know better than does the Federal Government about our roads, and I can assure you they care just as much as any employee in the Federal Government who has been in power to make this decision. Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the Rahall amendment. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth]. Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] for the great job he is doing on his subcommittee. I think it is about time that we had that kind of common sense restored to Government. I also want to tip my hat to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] who is leaving the Congress, for the great job he is doing, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] and the entire committee. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the bill before us today, not this particular amendment, but certainly the bill. Most important, of course, this bill designates our National Highway System. This includes roads in northeast Wisconsin, like Highway Nos. 29, 41, and 441. These roads are the lifeline that connect us to the world, that move our goods and bring our tourists and support our businesses. However, it also restores nearly $1 billion in transportation money to the States. My own State of Wisconsin, for example, will have nearly $200 million restored to the Wisconsin transportation budget, another $80 million in additional highway funds for Wisconsin will be released by the passage of this bill, and it gives the States new flexibility in how they use their highway funds. For that, we thank the good common sense and the great intelligence of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri]. We need this money, and we need this flexibility. Finally, this bill will eliminate the heavy burdens the Federal Government has imposed on the States over the years. It is time the Government, including the bureaucrats who are determined to run our lives, listen to the American people. Let us face it, it is simply a waste of time and money to require the States to convert their highway signs to the metric system. The Government has been trying to force the metric system down the throats of the American people since the Carter administration. It is time to wake up. The American people do not want it. Whenever I go back home, whenever you go back home to your town hall meetings, this issue comes up. Now we have a chance to address the wishes of the American people. That is why I am so much in favor of this legislation. Furthermore, while I certainly believe that we must do all we can to promote safety, it is wrong for the Federal Government to hold the States hostage. It is time to remove Federal mandates the punish States that do not pass the kind of laws Big Brother Washington thinks that we should have. That is why I urge Members to support this bill, and oppose the amendments that would limit the authority of the States to make commonsense decisions for themselves. {time} 1430 Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, our earlier speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin, said he was struck by three facts. Pulling off the road thinking about highways in Wisconsin, he was just lucky not to be struck by three cars going at a high speed. He would have wound up in a hospital. My good friend from Texas said we do not want speed limits set by some bureaucrat in Washington. I appeal to the gentleman, I am not some bureaucrat in Washington. I am not some bureaucrat in Washington. I protest. And I do not propose to speak for the people of Texas or to say that I know better about their road segments than they do. But Interstate 35 either starts in Duluth or ends in Laredo, TX, or vice versa, and goes right through the gentleman's district. People in my State and district have a right to be protected against excessive speed on Federal aid highways in other States. We have something to say about how people drive on those roads. Make no mistake about it; this issue is not about whether we are going to drive faster or slower or whether States should have responsibility. This issue is about giving the States the right to increase speed limits. Opponents of national speed limits do not want these speed limits removed so people can drive slower. States want, and people in States around the country, some people, not all of them, for goodness sakes not all of them, want to drive faster. It is a fact of life that we drive faster. We kill people. We have just this summer been celebrating the end of World War II; 440,000-plus Americans were killed in action. Every decade we kill more people on America's highways than we did in World War II. That ought to stick with us. There is a war on America's highways and we have an opportunity to put a limit on it and say we shall not drive faster than this. Why can we not do that? We must do it. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me state my very strong support for this amendment, obviously, but also the support of some 52 organizations that have written this body opposing the repeal of the national maximum speed limit. Among this very diverse group are the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Alliance of American Insurers, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Insurance Association, American Nurses Association, American Red Cross, Consumer Federation [[Page H 9292]] of America, the Heads Up Injury Prevention Program, numerous insurance companies, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Public Citizen, State Farm Insurance Companies, among many others, have written us in strong support of maintaining the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit. In addition, we have a letter written to the ranking minority member of our committee from the American Trucking Associations' Mr. Tom Donahue, its president and CEO, maintaining their support, the American Trucking Associations' support for supporting the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit. Not only is it fuel conservation and less wear and tear on their equipment, but the most important reason the ATA states in their letter for supporting the 55-mile-per-hour national speed limit is that they are convinced it saves lives. This is from the ATA. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I do urge support of this amendment. I may have been born at night, but I was not born last night; and I recognize where the votes lie on this issue. I say to those Members that are concerned about State flexibility, as we have heard during this debate, that, if you find in your heart and in your conscience your inability to support this particular amendment, I do have a followup amendment which will set a 65-mile-per-hour speed limit cap and allow all the State flexibility in the world under that cap as a followup compromise measure. I would certainly expect those concerned about States rights to support that particular amendment. With that, I do urge adoption of this particular amendment in the name of saving lives. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Rahall amendment and in support of the national speed limit repeal as contained in the National Highway System bill. For too long, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government has maintained its heavy hand over our States in setting the Nation's speed limit and I can tell you as a westerner, with vast amounts of territory to drive through, the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit has always been viewed as ludicrous and mostly ignored. There is no question that in the early 1970's, during the Arab oil embargo, we all had to pull together and work to conserve our energy resources. The national speed limit was invoked as a temporary measure for the duration of that crisis. Unfortunately, in Washington's typical way, someone got the idea that it would be best to take the one-size fits all approach and make 55 the law of the land. I can tell you that since that time, Nevadan's have been adamantly opposed to a national speed limit and I have worked to give the responsibility of setting speed limits back to the States, where it belongs. In 1987, I was proud to be a part of the effort that brought a little more common sense into this process by working to enact legislation that allowed the speed limit to be raised on our rural interstate highways to 65 miles per hour. It was a step in the right direction, but we need to take that final step and just plain get the Government out of this business. As with so many other issues best handled at the State level, it is Nevadans who know best what roads should be traveled at 35, or those that might be traveled at 65. Lets finish the job today! The right of the State to handle such matters is fundamental, and I strongly endorse the actions taken by the committee to eliminate the national speed limit. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Rahall amendment. Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Congressman Rahall's amendment to retain our current speed limits. According to the National Academy of Sciences, the national speed limit law saves 2,000 to 4,000 lives each year. Repeal of the national maximum speed limit is part of a larger effort by the majority to roll back the power and reach of the Federal Government in matters where States rights and individual choice are at issue. However, I don't believe the American people want their lawmakers to decrease public safety in the name of regulatory reform or under the banner of States rights. That is too high a price to pay. Repeal of the national speed limit law endangers the safety of all Americans. Some State officials have already indicated their intent to immediately move to repeal safety laws if the Federal programs are eliminated. In several States, speed limits automatically go above 65 mph if the national maximum speed limit is repealed. If the national speed limit is repealed and we return to pre-1974 conditions, the Federal Transportation Department estimates we will be faced with an additional 4,750 highway deaths each year, at a cost of $15 billion. Who pays the price, if the speed limit is repealed? Taxpayers ultimately bear the cost for emergency medical and police response, medical treatment, days or years of lost productivity, disability compensation for the motor vehicle crashes that will result from higher speed limits. We know that speed is a factor in nearly one-third of all traffic fatalities and that motor vehicle crashes already cost society more than $137 billion every year. The health care portion is approximately $14 billion--of which Medicare and Medicaid pay $3.7 billion or almost 30 percent. I strongly believe that a Federal role encouraging safety is very necessary. If you share my concerns and want to save lives as well as taxpayer dollars, vote for the Rahall amendment. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Rahall amendment that would kill the effort to repeal the national speed limit. I oppose this amendment on two fronts. First, reasons for the original speed limit are no longer valid. In 1973, because of the OPEC oil embargo, the Federal Government mandated that States lower speed limits to conserve oil. This original directive was in the interest of national security. The oil crisis has eased, automobiles are safer, and get far better mileage. In short, there is little reason to keep the mandate in place. Second, and more importantly, the 55 m.p.h. speed limit is disregarded by an average of 7 out of 10 drivers. It is a law that breeds contempt of the law and the men and women who must enforce the unenforceable. Highway patrolmen are a limited resource. If more officers are required to enforce speed limits, fewer can be assigned to other safety activities, such as removing drunk drivers or stopping drug trafficking. Numerous studies have shown that raising the speed limit to 65 m.p.h. does not increase the overall speed on interstates. The truth remains this--repeal is not a move by the Federal Government to raise speed limits, it simply gives States, which are in the best position to set speeds, the power to do so. Furthermore, interstates and Federal roads were built with taxpayers' money. This Congress should have gotten the message last November. The Federal Government doesn't have any money--it takes it from our citizens in the form of taxes. I urge colleagues to oppose the Rahall amendment and support speed limit repeal. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall]. The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. recorded votes Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 112, noes 313, not voting 9, as follows: [Roll No. 676] AYES--112 Abercrombie Becerra Beilenson Boehlert Bonior Borski Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Cardin Clay Clayton Clinger Clyburn Collins (IL) Conyers Coyne DeLauro Dellums Dicks Dingell Dixon Durbin Ehlers Engel Eshoo Evans Farr Fields (LA) Foglietta Ford Fowler Gejdenson Gephardt Gibbons Gilchrest Gilman Gutierrez Hall (OH) Hastings (FL) Hilliard Hinchey Hoyer Jackson-Lee Jacobs Johnston Kennedy (RI) Kennelly Kildee LaFalce Lantos LaTourette Levin Lewis (GA) Lipinski Lofgren Lowey Maloney Manton Markey Martinez Matsui McDermott McHale McKinney McNulty Meek Menendez Mfume Miller (CA) Mineta Mink Molinari Montgomery Moran Morella Murtha Nadler Oberstar Olver Owens Pallone Pastor Payne (NJ) Pelosi Rahall Rangel Reed Roybal-Allard Rush Sabo Scott Serrano Shuster Slaughter Spratt Stark Stokes Studds Thompson Torres Traficant Velazquez Vento Visclosky Waters Waxman Wise Wolf Woolsey Wynn Yates NOES--313 Ackerman Allard Andrews Archer Armey Bachus Baesler Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Baldacci Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett (WI) Bartlett [[Page H 9293]] Barton Bass Bateman Bentsen Bereuter Berman Bevill Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop Bliley Blute Boehner Bonilla Bono Boucher Brewster Browder Brownback Bryant (TN) Bryant (TX) Bunn Bunning Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Canady Castle Chabot Chambliss Chapman Chenoweth Christensen Chrysler Clement 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 DeLay Deutsch Diaz-Balart Dickey Doggett Dooley Doolittle Dornan Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehrlich Emerson English Ensign Everett Ewing Fawell Fazio Fields (TX) Filner Flake Flanagan Foley Forbes Fox Frank (MA) Franks (CT) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frisa Frost Funderburk Furse Gallegly Ganske Gekas Geren Gillmor Gonzalez Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Green Greenwood Gunderson Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hamilton Hancock Hansen Harman Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Hefner Heineman Herger Hilleary Hobson Hoekstra Hoke Holden Horn Hostettler Houghton Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inglis Istook Jefferson Johnson (CT) Johnson (SD) Johnson, E.B. Johnson, Sam Jones Kanjorski Kaptur Kasich Kelly Kim King Kingston Kleczka Klink Klug Knollenberg Kolbe LaHood Largent Latham Laughlin Lazio Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Lightfoot Lincoln Linder Livingston LoBiondo Longley Lucas Luther Manzullo Martini Mascara McCarthy McCollum McCrery McDade McHugh McInnis McIntosh McKeon Meehan Metcalf Meyers Mica Miller (FL) Minge Mollohan Moorhead Myers Myrick Neal Nethercutt Neumann Ney Norwood Nussle Obey Ortiz Orton Oxley Packard Paxon Payne (VA) Peterson (FL) Peterson (MN) Petri Pickett Pombo Pomeroy Porter Portman Poshard Pryce Quillen Quinn Radanovich Ramstad Regula Richardson Riggs Rivers Roberts Roemer Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Rose Roth Royce Salmon Sanders Sanford Sawyer Saxton Scarborough Schaefer Schiff Schroeder Schumer Seastrand Sensenbrenner Shadegg Shaw Shays Skaggs Skeen Skelton Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Solomon Souder Spence Stearns Stenholm Stockman Stump Stupak Talent Tanner Tate Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Tejeda Thomas Thornberry Thornton Thurman Tiahrt Torkildsen Torricelli Towns Upton Volkmer Vucanovich Waldholtz Walker Walsh Wamp Ward Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller White Whitfield Wicker Williams Wilson Wyden Young (AK) Young (FL) Zeliff Zimmer NOT VOTING--9 Barrett (NE) Fattah Kennedy (MA) Moakley Parker Reynolds Roukema Sisisky Tucker {time} 1456 Mr. DeFAZIO and Miss COLLINS of Michigan changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Mr. McDERMOTT, Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey, and Mrs. KENNELLY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.'' So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. --- The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III? amendment offered by mr. rahall Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 26. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 26 offered by Mr. Rahall: Strike section 348 and insert in lieu thereof the following: SEC. 348. NATIONAL MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT. Section 154(a) of title 23, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by striking ``fifty-five miles'' the first place it appears and all that follows through ``or (4)'' and inserting ``65 miles per hour, or (2)''; and (2) by striking ``Clause (4)'' and inserting ``Clause (2)''. Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly. The CHAIRMAN. Under the previous unanimous-consent agreement, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] will be recognized for 10 minutes and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] will be recognized for 10 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall]. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this follow-up amendment is the perfect compromise on this issue. I, of course, was in strong support of the original 55- miles-per-hour speed limit. This amendment seeks to address the concerns often stated on the last amendment and by many other Members about the issue, in their minds anyway, of States rights. This amendment simply establishes a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour. Under current law, as we all know, the Federal speed limit is set at 55 miles per hour for urban sections of interstate highways, and at the option of the State, 65 miles per hour for rural segments of the interstates. For all other highways and roads, the Federal speed limit remains at 55. Mr. Chairman, the amendment adopted by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, on the other hand, would completely abolish the Federal speed limit. Under this approach, a State could opt to set speed limits at any level, or for that matter, set no speed limit whatsoever. In this regard, I would note that prior to the establishment of the Federal speed limit, two States did not have any speed limits whatsoever. This type of situation would once again arise and be allowable under the committee bill as it stands. Now, we have heard a lot of discussion about State rights and the need for greater flexibility in setting speed limits. We also know, from statistical data, that speed kills. There should be no doubt about that. Speed kills. In addition there are economic costs. The economic costs of speed- related deaths in this country are $24 billion each year. Mr. Chairman, that is $44,000 a minute, in the costs of speed-related crashes each year. Even the opponents of the last amendment and supporters of repealing any type of speed limit have not suggested that there not be speed limits whatsoever, and as such, my amendment, I think, represents a perfect dovetailing of the opposition concerns that have thus far been expressed. It recognizes that there may be a need for additional flexibility in establishing maximum speed limits, and it recognizes there should be some type of limitation on this flexibility in the interests of safety. In my amendment, the maximum speed limit that could be established by a State would be 65. Let me be clear: A State would not have to accept that speed limit; it would simply have the option to establish speed limits for any type of highway or road up to the maximum of 65. I not only view this amendment as being a fair and reasonable compromise on the issue of speed limits, but one that, in fact, addresses the concerns of both the supporters of the repeal of the national speed limit and the opponents of that approach. I urge adoption of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment offered by Mr. Rahall. This House has voted to turn back to the States the responsibility for setting speed limits--including maximum speed limits. I do not believe we here in Washington should prejudge what is the appropriate speed in every area of the country. I have long heard the frustration of my colleagues from Texas, Oklahoma, Montana, and other areas where distances between destinations are very far and drivers on the roads are few. While my own State of Wisconsin, perhaps, may not see a reason to increase speeds beyond 65, other States may make the determination that it is the proper action to take. In any event, what we are saying today is--it is up to the States. So while I appreciate the sincere interest of my colleague on the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, I must urge the House to defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking minority member. Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rahall amendment. I have made very clear my position on the national maximum speed limit. It should remain as it is today: 65 miles per hour on rural interstates and interstate equivalents, and 55 miles per hour on other, more congested and narrower, roads. However, the bill before us repeals all Federal speed limits, allowing States to set the limit at 65, or 75, or 85, or even no limit at all. Before Congress enacted the national speed limit, 39 States had limits of 70 miles per hour or higher, and two had no limit at all. This bill now tells States that it is okay with us if a State says, ``Drive whatever speed you want, the sky's the limit!'' If this were a States rights issue, I would agree with my colleagues who oppose this amendment. But we cannot escape the fact that the impacts of raising the speed limits spill over into other States and into the pocketbooks of taxpayers across this country. The amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia is certainly not my position on speed limits, but at least it would reflect the national interest and put some upper bound on what the speed limit could be. That's certainly not enough, but it is a vast improvement over where we would otherwise be. The number of deaths, the number of serious injuries, and the burden on taxpayers will not go up as much as they would under the sky's-the-limit provision now in the bill. On that basis, I urge support for the amendment. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. [[Page H 9295]] Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Again, opposition to a national speed limit is being couched in terms of let the States decide. The unspelled-out argument is let the States go as high as they want. This is not a move to contain speed on America's highways. It is a move to allow the speed to rise, in some cases, to no limit. That is outrageous. This is a national highway system. The people that I represent in northern Minnesota have a right to be protected on highways they drive in other States, and when they drive on the highways of some other State, that they have a right to know that there is a reasonable limit on speed, that their life is not going to be endangered as they drive on America's highways in other parts of this country than the part that they come from. We have a responsibility, as national legislators, to act. We have it within our reach today to put a limit on speed. That limit should be 55. The House has spoken. It says, ``No, let people drive as fast as they want.'' Make no mistake, that is not a States' rights vote, the last vote cast. That was a move to raise speed limits all over America. People want to drive furiously at the risk of their own and other people's lives. They should not be allowed to do so. Those who drive with reckless abandon should know that there are limits and that they will be penalized and that this is a national will and we ought to find the national will in this Chamber to do so and stand up and speak. We all know speed kills. We all know what the dangers are. We all know what the costs are. We ought not to shrink from our responsibility and say leave it up to the States, because, you know the pressures there are going to be on a smaller legislative body, that can be cross- cut and cut many different ways and which will give in to the loudest voice. I regret the last vote. I regret even more a ``no'' vote on this amendment that puts a reasonable upper limit, gives States flexibility to set their own speed limit at any point, less than 65, and we ought to vote in favor of the very reasonable amendment that the gentleman from West Virginia has set forth. Enough is enough. Stop the carnage on America's highways. We can, with one vote, do so. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham]. {time} 1515 Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will not take 2 minutes. I understand with good intention what the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] wants to do. I know in my State of California, if you are driving 55 miles an hour, you are in danger. You cannot pull out, you cannot do anything, because you have streaks of lightning going by you. But I think what the amendment attempts, there are a could of issues. It is not just a States rights issue, but an issue of do we trust someone outside Washington, DC, to make the determination on what is right and proper for that particular district, or that particular State. I think we can trust local government and local people to take responsibility, and I think this bill says no, we do not trust them to do that. There is a big difference between San Diego, CA, and Maine, and a lot of country in-between, and each one has different rules, different rights, and I think that if we allow the States to make that determination, they will do it in a responsible way. So even though there is good intention to the gentleman's amendment, I stand opposed to it, and I ask my colleagues to oppose it. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me again urge support of this compromise. The previous speaker spoke of if you are driving 55 miles per hour on California highways, people pass by you in a streak of lightning. Again, this is a limit of 65 miles per hour and it does allow States the flexibility within and underneath that cap to set speed limits in different parts of their States as they see fit. Mr. Chairman, I would submit as well, because this is a safety issue, that what we are discussing here is the Federal Government's responsibility to impose proper safety standards upon all of the people in this country, and we have a responsibility not only in this area when it comes to auto driving, but also in other areas, whether it is mine safety, consumer-related health, FDA, whatever, we could go down the list, but where the Federal Government does have a proper role and responsibility. It cannot be left to the States. Again, I am not casting aspersions upon our State legislatures, which I am sure will rise above local interest and make the common good decision. Nevertheless, we have that responsibility on the Federal level and we cannot allow States to get in a contest of trying to outdo the other State. Again, we get into each State trying to go maybe 5 miles per hour above its neighboring State. Where does it stop? The sky is the limit under the committee-reported bill. This sets a reasonable limit. I think we ought to adopt this 65 mile an hour cap in the name of saving lives, and it is responsible public policy in this country. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall]. The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. recorded vote Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 133, noes 291, not voting 10, as follows: [Roll No. 677] AYES--133 Abercrombie Baldacci Barrett (WI) Becerra Beilenson Boehlert Bonior Borski Browder Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant (TX) Cardin Castle Clay Clayton Clinger Clyburn Collins (IL) Collins (MI) Conyers Costello Coyne Davis DeLauro Dellums Dingell Dixon Dooley Doyle Durbin Ehlers Engel Eshoo Evans Farr Fazio Foglietta Ford Fowler Furse Gejdenson Gephardt Gibbons Gilchrest Gilman Goodling Gutierrez Hall (OH) Hamilton Hastings (FL) Hilliard Hinchey Horn Hoyer Jackson-Lee Jacobs Johnson, E.B. Johnston Jones Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy (RI) Kennelly Kildee Kleczka Klink LaFalce Lantos LaTourette Levin Lewis (GA) Lipinski Lofgren Lowey Maloney Manton Markey Martinez Martini Matsui McCarthy McDermott McKinney McNulty Meek Menendez Meyers Mfume Miller (CA) Mineta Mink Molinari Mollohan Montgomery Moran Morella Murtha Nadler Oberstar Olver Pallone Parker Payne (NJ) Pelosi Poshard Rahall Rangel Reed Roybal-Allard Rush Sabo Sawyer Scott Serrano Shuster Slaughter Spratt Stark Stokes Studds Thompson Torres Traficant Velazquez Vento Visclosky Waxman Wise Wolf Woolsey Yates NOES--291 Ackerman Allard Andrews Archer Armey Bachus Baesler Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Bentsen Bereuter Berman Bevill Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop Bliley Blute Boehner Bonilla Bono Boucher Brewster Brownback Bryant (TN) Bunn Bunning Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Canady Chabot Chambliss Chapman Chenoweth Christensen Chrysler Clement Coble Coburn Coleman Collins (GA) Combest Condit Cooley Cox Cramer Crane Crapo Cremeans Cubin Cunningham Danner de la Garza Deal DeFazio DeLay Deutsch Diaz-Balart Dickey Dicks Doggett Doolittle Dornan Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehrlich Emerson English Ensign Everett Ewing Fawell Fields (LA) Fields (TX) Filner Flake Flanagan Foley Forbes Fox Frank (MA) Franks (CT) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frisa Frost Funderburk Gallegly Ganske Gekas Geren Gillmor Gonzalez Goodlatte [[Page H 9296]] Gordon Goss Graham Green Greenwood Gunderson Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hancock Hansen Harman Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Hefner Heineman Herger Hilleary Hobson Hoekstra Hoke Holden Hostettler Houghton Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inglis Jefferson Johnson (CT) Johnson (SD) Johnson, Sam Kasich Kelly Kim King Kingston Klug Knollenberg Kolbe LaHood Largent Latham Laughlin Lazio Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Lightfoot Lincoln Linder Livingston LoBiondo Longley Lucas Luther Manzullo Mascara McCollum McCrery McDade McHale McHugh McInnis McIntosh McKeon Meehan Metcalf Mica Miller (FL) Minge Moorhead Myers Myrick Nethercutt Neumann Ney Norwood Nussle Obey Ortiz Orton Owens Oxley Packard Pastor Paxon Payne (VA) Peterson (FL) Peterson (MN) Petri Pickett Pombo Pomeroy Porter Portman Pryce Quillen Quinn Radanovich Ramstad Regula Richardson Riggs Rivers Roberts Roemer Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Rose Roth Royce Salmon Sanders Sanford Saxton Scarborough Schaefer Schiff Schroeder Schumer Seastrand Sensenbrenner Shadegg Shaw Shays Skaggs Skeen Skelton Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Solomon Souder Spence Stearns Stenholm Stump Stupak Talent Tanner Tate Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Tejeda Thomas Thornberry Thornton Thurman Tiahrt Torkildsen Torricelli Towns Upton Volkmer Vucanovich Waldholtz Walker Walsh Wamp Ward Waters Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller White Whitfield Wicker Williams Wilson Wyden Wynn Young (AK) Young (FL) Zeliff Zimmer NOT VOTING--10 Fattah Istook Kennedy (MA) Moakley Neal Reynolds Roukema Sisisky Stockman Tucker {time} 1537 Mr. HOBSON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Mrs. CLAYTON and Mr. MARTINEZ changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.'' So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. --- The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III? amendment offered by mr. oberstar Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Oberstar: Page 97, add the following new section: SEC. 356. SAFETY REPORT. Not later than September 30, 1997, the Secretary of Transportation, in cooperation with any state which raises any speed limit in such state to a level above the level permitted under section 154 of Title 23, United States Code, as such section was in effect on September 15, 1995, shall prepare and submit to the Congress a study of-- (1) the costs to such state of deaths and injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes, and (2) the benefits associated with the repeal of national maximum speed limit. Mr. OBERSTAR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? There was no objection. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, we have enjoyed working with the gentleman on this amendment, have studied it, and are willing to accept it. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee for their cooperation, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] for his participation. This is simply a safety report. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises. Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Diaz-Balart) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hansen, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2274) to amend title 23, United States Code, to designate the National Highway System, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 224, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered. Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment. The amendment was agreed to. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. SHUSTER. 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. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 419, nays 7, not voting 8, as follows: [Roll No. 679] YEAS--419 Abercrombie Ackerman Allard Andrews Archer Armey Bachus Baesler Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Baldacci Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett (NE) Barrett (WI) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Becerra Bentsen Bereuter Berman Bevill Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop Bliley Blute Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonior Bono Borski Boucher Brewster Browder Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Brownback Bryant (TN) Bryant (TX) Bunn Bunning Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Canady Cardin Castle Chabot Chambliss Chapman Chenoweth Christensen Chrysler Clay Clayton Clement Clinger Clyburn Coble Coburn Coleman Collins (GA) Collins (IL) Collins (MI) Combest Condit Conyers Cooley Costello Cox Coyne Cramer Crane Crapo Cremeans Cubin Cunningham Danner Davis de la Garza Deal DeFazio DeLauro DeLay Deutsch Diaz-Balart Dickey Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Dooley Doolittle Dornan Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Durbin Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson Engel English Ensign Eshoo Evans Everett Ewing Farr Fattah Fawell Fazio Fields (LA) Fields (TX) Filner Flake Flanagan Foglietta Foley Forbes Ford Fowler Fox Frank (MA) 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 (FL) Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Hefner Heineman Herger Hilleary Hilliard Hinchey Hobson Hoekstra Hoke Holden Horn Hostettler Houghton Hoyer Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inglis Istook Jackson-Lee Jefferson Johnson (CT) Johnson (SD) Johnson, E. B. Johnson, Sam Jones Kanjorski Kaptur Kasich Kelly Kennedy (RI) Kennelly Kildee Kim King Kingston Kleczka Klink Klug Knollenberg Kolbe LaFalce LaHood Lantos Largent Latham LaTourette Laughlin Lazio Leach Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Lewis (KY) Lightfoot Lincoln Linder Lipinski Livingston LoBiondo Lofgren Longley Lowey Lucas Luther Maloney Manton Manzullo Markey Martinez Martini Mascara Matsui McCarthy McCollum McCrery McDade McDermott McHale McHugh McInnis McIntosh McKeon McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek Menendez Metcalf Meyers Mfume Mica Miller (CA) Miller (FL) Mineta Minge Mink Molinari Mollohan Montgomery Moorhead Moran Morella Murtha Myers Myrick Nadler Neal Nethercutt Neumann Ney Norwood Nussle Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Owens Oxley Packard Pallone Parker Pastor Paxon Payne (NJ) Payne (VA) Pelosi Peterson (FL) Peterson (MN) Petri Pickett Pombo Pomeroy Porter Portman Poshard Pryce Quillen Quinn Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Rangel Reed Regula Richardson Riggs Rivers Roberts Roemer Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Rose Roth Roybal-Allard Royce Rush Sabo Salmon Sanders Sanford Sawyer Saxton Scarborough Schaefer Schiff Schroeder Schumer Scott Seastrand Sensenbrenner Serrano Shadegg Shaw Shays Shuster Skaggs Skeen Skelton Slaughter Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Solomon Souder Spence Spratt Stark Stearns Stenholm Stockman Stokes Studds Stump Stupak Talent Tanner Tate Tauzin Taylor (MS) Tejeda Thomas Thompson Thornberry Thornton Thurman Tiahrt Torkildsen Torres Torricelli Towns Traficant Upton Velazquez Vento Visclosky Vucanovich Waldholtz Walker Walsh Wamp Ward Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Waxman Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller White Whitfield Wicker Williams Wilson Wise Wolf Woolsey Wyden Wynn Yates Young (AK) Young (FL) Zeliff Zimmer NAYS--7 Beilenson Dellums Gibbons Jacobs Johnston Orton Waters NOT VOTING--8 Kennedy (MA) Moakley Reynolds Roukema Sisisky Taylor (NC) Tucker Volkmer {time} 1753 Mr. GIBBONS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' Messrs. BACHUS, FATTAH, and FOGLIETTA changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.'' So the bill was passed. The result of the vote was announced as recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. ____________________