[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 76 (Thursday, June 16, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 4556, DEPARTMENT OF 
      TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 454 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 454

       Resolved, That points of order against consideration of the 
     bill (H.R. 4556) making appropriations for the Department of 
     Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, for 
     failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI or clause 7 
     of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill, all 
     points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived except as 
     follows: beginning on page 53, line 9, through page 54, line 
     22.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes for the 
purpose of debate only to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. GORDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 454 is an open rule which 
provides for the consideration of H.R. 4556, the Department of 
Transportation and related agencies appropriation bill for fiscal year 
1995.
  The rule waives clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI and clause 7 of rule XXI 
against consideration of the bill. Clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI requires a 
3-day layover of legislation reported from committee, and clause 7 of 
rule XXI requires relevant printed hearings and the committee report be 
available for 3 days prior to consideration of a general appropriation 
bill.
  Clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations or 
legislative provisions in a general appropriation bill, is waived 
against the entire bill except for section 337.
  Finally, clause 6 of rule XXI, which prohibits reappropriations in 
general appropriation bills, is waived against all provisions of the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Chairman Bob Carr, ranking 
Republican Frank Wolf, and the subcommittee members for bringing this 
comprehensive bill to the floor.
  H.R. 4556 is the product of hard work and dedication. This spring, 
Chairman Carr lead the subcommittee through hours of testimony from 
hundreds of witnesses, which is recorded in eight published volumes 
totaling over 9,000 pages.
  Each year the subcommittee members find themselves around the table 
with their sleeves rolled up making the tough decisions on how best to 
maintain our current transportation infrastructure and at the same time 
fund new, innovative technologies. This year, as in past years, all of 
this was achieved with a much tighter budget.
  I want to commend Bob Carr for his leadership in developing 
investment criteria which the subcommittee uses when evaluating 
individual funding requests. Many hours were spent developing and 
drafting the criteria.
  Every Member who submits a funding request to the subcommittee must 
answer a series of detailed questions about the costs and benefits of 
the project. The investment criteria provide the subcommittee members 
with an objective basis by which they can compare and contrast the 
numerous funding requests which are submitted each year. I hope the 
criteria continue to be utilized in years to come.
  I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr], 
for his friendship and advice. He is a good friend and he provides 
sound advice. My thanks also to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], 
the members of the subcommittee, and the staff for all of your hard 
work.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous matter.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, last year when the transportation spending 
bill came through the Rules Committee, many of us on that committee 
felt like the rope in a particularly nasty tug-of-war: frayed around 
the edges as we were pulled in two different directions. Thankfully, 
this year, the authorizers and appropriators came to an understanding 
before they came to the Rules Committee and today we have a much more 
civilized rules process. Having managed last year's series of maybe-we-
will/maybe-we-won't rules on this subject--I am most grateful to the 
two chairmen for rising above their differences. The rule today allows 
an open amendment process--good news for this House, because it gives 
all Members a chance to offer cutting amendments aimed at specific line 
items in this bill. Throughout this appropriations season, we keep 
hearing laments by chairmen and ranking members of the subcommittees 
about just how tight the money has become. As someone who has long 
urged this House to restrain its spending--I cannot say I am sorry to 
hear Members are finally understanding the pinch. And I understand that 
some projects--mostly legitimate ones--did not make the cut in this 
bill. In fact, a worthwhile bridge and road project in my district, 
which was authorized by the Public Works Committee, was not included in 
this bill. But that is all part of the process--so we will come back 
next year and make our case again. Mr. Speaker, with respect to this 
rule--despite the open amendment process, there are some serious 
problems that, it seems to me, unnecessarily antagonize those of us in 
the minority. In fact, when you read through this rule--you will see 
that it consists only of waivers--including waivers of the 3-day 
layover requirements and nearly universal waivers of the rules against 
unauthorized appropriations and legislating on an appropriations bill. 
But it is not just the waivers that give us pause. Chiefly, we 
strenuously object to the unfair manner in which waivers for points or 
order have been applied. In fact, the entire bill--including a 
questionable provision inserted for a senior member from Maryland--has 
been protected from points or order against legislating on an 
appropriations bill except for one matter pertaining to I-66 in 
northern Virginia requested by the ranking member of the transportation 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. Mr. Speaker, I 
would like to suggest to those people who might be watching today who 
routinely suffer in the horrible traffic jams that plague northern 
Virginia--call the Rules Committee majority members. It was, after all, 
their decision to disallow Mr. Wolf's effort to relieve some of the 
congestion. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the underlying bill, I fully 
support the process of establishing priorities and determining what we 
can and cannot afford. I must say there is one area in this bill where 
I think we have been penny wise and pound foolish--and that is funding 
for the Coast Guard. Under the President's request for this vital, 
although smallest, of our Armed Forces--the Coast Guard took a big hit. 
But this bill goes even further, slashing an additional $50 million 
from the Coast Guard operations account and $54 million in the 
acquisition Capital and Investment Account beyond the cuts the 
President wanted.

                              {time}  1050

  I am terribly concerned about this trend--especially at a time when 
the administration is adding to the multifaceted mission of the Coast 
Guard, with its ever-expanding Haiti mission. We still have had no 
response from the administration to question about the cost of the 
Haitian operation to date, about the estimated cost for the remainder 
of this seemingly open-ended mission, or about how much money in this 
fiscal year 1995 budget will ultimately go toward that mission instead 
of to normal Coast Guard operations--like search and rescue, 
environmental response or ice operations. In fact, we have been told 
that some of the money currently being used for the Haiti operation was 
shifted over from the drug interdiction efforts the Coast Guard was 
directed to draw down. This is the second area of particular concern. 
As in fiscal year 1994, the President's fiscal year 1995 budget cut 
deeply into the Coast Guard's funding for drug interdiction. The 
committee appears to have accepted these cuts and the President's new 
demandside, treatment approach to drug control policy. Why don't we 
just waive the all-clear sign in neon lights? This policy shift sends 
the signal to Caribbean drug traffickers and it leaves States like 
Florida on the front lines of the battle without any cover. It is 
simply not smart policy, in my view. Mr. Speaker, there are serious 
problems in this bill--and we are glad to have an open amendment 
process that will allow us to focus on some of those prioritization 
issues. But the fact remains that this rule has serious problems on its 
own--chief among them a big-time fairness gap. I urge a ``no'' vote on 
the rule.

  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record information relating to roll 
call votes in the Rules Committee, as follows:

    Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Motions to H.R. 4556, 
                 Transportation Appropriations, FY 1995

       1. Motion to protect against points of order the Wolf 
     provision on Virginia HOV rule for I-66 (Sec. 337). Vote 
     (Defeated). Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Goss. Nays: Moakley, 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, 
     Hall, Wheat, Gordon, Dreier.
       2. Adoption of Rule--Vote (Adopted 5-3): Yeas: Moakley, 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Nays: Solomon, Quillen, 
     Goss. Not Voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon, Dreier.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I want to concur with the statement of the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], as this is an open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Carr], chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to be brief because we will use in our 
general debate time the opportunity to discuss the bill. I merely want 
to thank the Committee on Rules for their consideration.
  I want to also indicate my thanks to the gentleman from California, 
Chairman Norm Mineta, for his cooperation this year. Unlike last year 
where we had a divergence between the authorization and the 
appropriations process, this year we were working in tandem and working 
together throughout the year. The Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation authorized a number of projects, about $900 million 
worth of projects, I might say, and put a cap on the annual 
appropriation at $300 million. Therefore, we were not able to 
accommodate all of the requests like the one of the gentleman from 
Florida for projects that were included in the National Highway System 
bill. But the authorization is available for 3 years. We tried to 
provide for as many of the projects that were under way as possible in 
this year's bill. The newer projects which we were unable to fund this 
year will be qualified to seek appropriations in future years. We hope 
for all those Members who worked very hard to get their projects 
authorized that there will be money for them in the next 2 fiscal 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Committee on Rules for giving us 
this rule. I merely want to make one small comment, that if it had been 
up to me, I would have preferred a rule that would have protected the 
matter of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. I think the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] is correct on the merits, I agree with what 
the gentleman is trying to do, I think it is a reasonable effort on his 
part, and I know that the Committee on Rules in its wisdom granted some 
waivers in some other areas and not in the area of the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. Those other areas were equally meritorious. I will 
leave it to others to explain why that could not happen, but I just 
wanted to associate myself with the effort of the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. The gentleman is a fine Member. He has worked very 
diligently and very hard. We have worked together throughout this year. 
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding my reservation on the matter of the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], I urge adoption of the rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Carr], the chairman of the subcommittee, for his comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, even though this rule does not alter the normal open 
amendment process for appropriations bills, I must oppose it in the 
strongest possible terms because it singles out one Member of this 
House, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], a 
Republican, for special mistreatment. Let me repeat that. This rule 
singles out one Member of this House for mistreatment and treats him 
like no other Member.
  His provision regarding the HOV lanes on I-66 inside Washington's 
Beltway is the only item left exposed to a point of order in this 
entire bill. Everything else in the bill, whether unauthorized or 
legislative in nature, is protected against a point of order.
  Why has the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Subcommittee 
which reported this bill been singled out for this special 
mistreatment? We are told it is because the chairman of the Committee 
on Public Works and Transportation objects to his provision, even 
though that same chairman did not express opposition to a similar 
parochial provision by a Democrat from suburban Maryland. That is what 
makes me sick of politics sometimes.
  I guess if we are looking for consistency around this place, we soon 
come to realize that we are on the wrong planet. What is it that the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] says, ``Beam me up?'' I guess there 
must be some reason why he says that. That kind of frustration 
certainly goes in spades when it comes to the Committee on Rules that I 
have to serve on. One would perhaps naively think that the Committee on 
Rules, of all committees, would apply some rule of consistency and 
uniformity to its decisions, Mr. Speaker.
  But that idealized notion of the Committee on Rules ignores two 
essential facts:
  First, the Committee on Rules is a self-confessed political arm of 
the Democrat leadership, having, as it does, a very lopsided partisan 
majority of two to one plus one. That is right, nine Democrats and only 
four Republicans serve on that committee.
  So the committee exists in part to do the partisan bidding of the 
Democrat leadership. And no one expects the Democrat leadership to be 
either bipartisan or fair in most instances.
  Second, the Committee on Rules exists primarily to authorize 
departures or deviations from the standing rules of this House. It 
might be better called the unruly, or the exception to the Rules 
Committee, because that is what it is.
  Mr. Speaker, virtually every special rule the committee reports 
contains either waivers or violations of the standing rules of the 
House that were adopted in the beginning of each Congress. That pattern 
becomes readily apparent on appropriations bills, such as this, which 
do not even require special rules to come to the floor. These are 
privileged bills that take priority over all other business.
  Mr. Speaker, the only reason the Committee on Appropriations comes to 
the Committee on Rules is to ask for protection against points of 
order, because it has violated the rules. It has violated the rules 
that we adopt in the beginning of every Congress. The former chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations, the most respected Member of this 
body ever to serve here in my opinion, the late Bill Natcher, did not 
want to bring any of his bills to the Committee on Rules. It was his 
feeling that the Committee on Appropriations should take its chances on 
the floor with points of order and let the chips fall where they may. 
On the other hand, if all of the unauthorized and legislative 
provisions were to be routinely protected by special rules, that would 
only encourage more violations to be perpetrated, and the distinction 
between the authorizing and the appropriations process would be blurred 
even more than it is now. Believe you me, it is blurred.
  But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Chairman Natcher was usually 
overruled by his own subcommittee chairmen and his own Democrat 
leadership on whether to seek a rule, except, of course, when it came 
to his own subcommittee, the Labor-HHS bill. That was always brought to 
this floor without a rule. Members all know that.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the sixth regular appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 1995 to be considered by the House this year. In all six 
instances, we have had special rules waiving points of order for 
violations of clause 2, rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized and 
legislative provisions from appearing in appropriations bills.

                              {time}  1100

  Moreover, we are told that all but one of the remaining seven regular 
appropriation bills will require such special rules. That one exception 
will be the Labor-HHS bill that Chairman Natcher would always bring to 
this floor without a rule. Chairman Neil Smith is now following in his 
footsteps. It is good to see at least one tradition has survived Mr. 
Natcher's passing.
  Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding my opposition to this rule, I do want to 
commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr], the chairman of the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, his Republican counterpart, 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], and the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]. They have worked out their differences this 
year before the rule and the bill were brought to the floor.
  All of the projects in the bill are either already authorized or, as 
I understand it, about to be authorized by the highway bill we passed 
just a few weeks ago. For that we are grateful, and we commend those 
gentlemen.
  But that does not overcome our objections to the inconsistency in 
this rule. I think it is outrageous that this rule has singled out the 
ranking Republican on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee 
for special mistreatment and, therefore, I have to strongly oppose it.
  Look at what we are doing for the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer], who happens to be the Democrat chairman of the Democrat caucus. 
This rule is waiving all the points of order, which allows him to 
exempt Maryland from new truck axle-weight limits. That is a parochial 
issue. They waive it for him. What does the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Wolf] want to do? He wants to let cars with two passengers use the 
high-occupancy-vehicle lane on Interstate 66 that is now reserved for 
cars with three or more passengers.
  You know, for the people in Northern Virginia, that is a parochial 
issue. It is the only HOV lane in America which requires more than two 
people, and yet this rule arbitrarily just sticks it to a Republican. 
We are going to deny him his right on this floor. That is outrageous. 
That is why we Republicans are going to oppose this rule.
  I am going to tell Democrats that this is going to come back to haunt 
them on their side of the aisle, because we Republicans just are not 
going to take it. We are not going to take it, and there is going to be 
some retribution. That is too bad, because we ought to have comity and 
friendship in dealing with the people's business before this House.
  What is the gentleman from Maryland doing on our side of the aisle? I 
am usually the one who goes to his side of the aisle.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I figured if you are going to use our side, I am going to 
get equal time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am a little surprised with the 
definition by my good friend from New York. I am a little surprised and 
shocked at the gentleman's definition of consistency and fairness.
  He frequently, not always, but frequently asks for open rules. He got 
an open rule this time. Sometimes he asks for waivers, sometimes he 
does not ask for waivers. This time there were some waivers given.
  And so it seems that his definition of fairness is, ``When I get 
exactly what I want, it is fair and consistent, but when I do not get 
exactly what I want, then it is not fair and consistent. Sometimes I 
want an open rule, sometimes I do not. Sometimes I want waivers, 
sometimes I do not. It is just when I want exactly what I want, and 
that is consistent, and that is fair.'' that seems a little old to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it clear, because there 
is in the course of this debate and yesterday's in continuing the 
attempt to, frankly, convey the message that there is this awful 
discrepancy between how Democrats are treated and Republicans are 
treated. Very frankly, in the appropriation bills in particular, there 
is great comity, and within the committee itself a great comity. As a 
matter of fact, this problem did not occur until after it got out of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  But let me make it very clear, because I happen to have the other 
amendment. Other than that they are totally unrelated. But my name has 
been mentioned.
  Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman will yield, it is coincidental.
  Mr. HOYER. I understand. But there is a significant difference. Every 
Republican in our delegation, every Democrat in our delegation, State 
and local governments are all in concurrence. There is no dispute in 
our State. This happens to be a technical thing. The legislature has 
moved on it, but because of the Federal statute, they cannot implement 
this change in the law which everybody agrees is a safer utilization of 
the four axles as opposed to the three axles. So there is a difference.
  The Committee on Rules was confronted, as I understand it, and I was 
not at the Committee on Rules, did not testify in it. This is not a big 
issue. I would say that we went last year, as I think the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] apparently did, to the Committee on Public 
Works and Transportation. We did not get it resolved then. We have been 
working at it, trying to get it resolved since then.
  But the difference is the Committee on Rules, as I understand it, was 
confronted. There is no dispute in our State between Republicans and 
Democrats.
  Now, the problem the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] has is one 
that very frankly I am trying to help him work out. But the problem 
that he has is there is a dispute within his State on this issue. So it 
is not analogous. I would suggest to the gentleman, and I want to 
understand that the problem, as I understand it, has come because there 
is a dispute. There is a dispute in terms of the parties.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], I understand, who also 
represents the suburban area, unlike the gentlewoman from Maryland 
[Mrs. Morella] and I and the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Bentley], 
who all agree on this issue, this is a dispute, so they are confronted 
with a different situation here where there is not unanimity of 
agreement.
  Now, having said that, I would like to see if we can work this out. 
But I do not want it projected that somehow the only difference here is 
that Hoyer happens to be a Democrat, and I have been brought into this, 
in my opinion, gratuitously, very frankly, totally unrelated. But Hoyer 
has got this little parochial, which everybody in our State agrees 
with, Republicans and Democrats, and it makes sense from a safety 
standpoint, and another provision, the HOV provision that the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] has, which clearly, by the admission of the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], as a matter of fact, he told me, 
apparently some do not agree. That is the difference. It is a 
substantive difference, not a political difference. It may be a 
difference in that people of different parties differ, but it is not a 
difference where there is simply an arbitrary and capricious handling 
of one provision differently because the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf] happens to be a Republican and I happen to be a Democrat.
  In point of fact, as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr], the 
chairman of the subcommittee, has pointed out, the provision offered by 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] was included, and the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Carr] supported the inclusion of that. It is the 
local difference of opinion that is the difference.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
ranking member, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would say to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], that he has just confirmed what I was talking 
about. This is all political. The two Democrat Congressmen opposed the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], and it is a partisan political 
issue.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] will talk about that later on. 
I will not belabor it at this point. But it is a shame that we could 
not bring his provision to the floor, debate it, and let the chips fall 
where they may.
  Under former Speaker O'Neill, who was a partisan Speaker, but a fair 
Speaker, we always let the chips fall where they may. We never had 
restrictive rules like this all the time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to briefly say that, before I yield to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the balance of my time, I want to 
briefly put on the Record that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] 
has made a very good point here.
  The point I would make in response is that to be absolutely fair, the 
Committee on Rules should not have granted protection from points of 
order for either the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] or the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. There was no reason to do it.
  If the program of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] was as 
noncontroversial as he says, it would not have been struck on a point 
of order in all likelihood, and the matter would have been resolved. 
Whether or not it is controversial is not the issue. Whether or not it 
is eligible to debate under the same rules is the question, and there 
is no reason to make a distinction that is apparent to us, and that is 
why we feel this is an issue of fairness.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1110

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking my side, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Goss], and my leadership, for standing firm and fighting for what 
is very, very important. I think it is important for all of us on this 
side to know that our leadership would not bail out on this issue.
  I am going to lay this out, and I appreciate the time. I hope to do 
it so that, when we are finished, and I am going to put more in the 
Record, people will understand the importance. This is a tale of two 
provisions.
  First, Mr. Speaker, it deals with the provision with regard to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], that the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Mineta] did not object to and allowed to go through, and that the 
Committee on Rules protected. Then I came forward with a provision at 
the request of the Governor of my State, who was just elected and 
promised this, to change for a 1-year trial period the HOV requirement 
on I-66. Let me just say, had former Governor Wilder asked for this, I 
would have done it for Governor Wilder, or former Governor Baliles, or 
former Governor Robb.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this has been handled in a way that I do not think 
anybody could object. I will deal with what the provision is later.
  The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is a powerful and very well 
respected member of the Democratic leadership that controls this body. 
The gentleman from Maryland is also a member of what they call the 
college of cardinals. The ranking members, we are, I guess, lowly, just 
laymen, but they are the college of cardinals, and, therefore, as my 
colleagues know, they get whatever they want.
  Let me just stipulate for the record that I genuinely like the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and he knows it, and I let the 
record show that. Somebody came up to me yesterday, two people, and 
said, ``Why don't you get somebody to offer a motion to strike the 
Hoyer provision?''
  I say to my colleagues, ``I didn't come to Congress to hurt Steny. I 
didn't come here to hurt people, to work secret amendments that I 
wouldn't have my hands on and Mr. Hoyer would have to debate. I didn't 
come here for that, so I'm not going to object to Mr. Hoyer's 
amendment. That would be wrong.''
  Now let me talk about I-66 on the merits. The Governor asked, and the 
Governor should control, the roads. The chairman of this committee, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr], agrees. Let us look at the other 
areas of the country.
  Houston: HOV- 2.
  Pittsburgh: HOV-2.
  Honolulu: HOV-2.
  Denver: HOV-2.
  San Diego: HOV-2.
  Hartford, CT: HOV-2.
  Los Angeles: HOV-2.
  Seattle: HOV-2.
  Orange and Riverside Counties: HOV-2.
  During our subcommittee hearings, Mr. Speaker, the people from Marin 
County, CA, came in and said that they started out a HOV-3 and did not 
get utilization of the road, and they dropped it to 2. It was a big, 
big success.
  Now I have taken a leadership role in this Congress second to no one 
with regard to family-friendly policies. This HOV-2 provision would 
allow a mom and a dad, if they were taking their child to a child care 
facility, which through the good work of the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer] and myself we now have a hundred in the Federal Government, 
to commute with their child. It would also allow a husband and wife to 
get into work a little bit early. But environmentally it would help 
this region meet its requirements under the Clean Air Act.
  Now, I understand that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], and I 
will speak to that, may very well object to this amendment. Now let me 
just tell my colleagues for the citizens that live in Mr. Moran's area, 
``If you take this out of the bill, you will take and put more traffic 
back on the residential streets because, by doing what we are trying to 
do for a 1-year trial period, we take cars off of Columbia Pike, off of 
Route 50, off of Wilson Boulevard, off of Fairfax Drive, off of 123 of 
Spout Run, off of the G.W. Parkway, off of Old Dominion, off of 
Military Road, off of Lorcum Lane. We take cars off of the residential 
streets, and, by goodness, we put it on the interstate highway that was 
built to move traffic for a 1-year trial plan, whereby the Governor of 
Virginia, who was duly elected by the people asked for the opportunity 
to do it.''
  Now we talk about bipartisanship in this body. Sometimes 
bipartisanship means that the Democratic powerful chairmen want 
something, and the Republican ranking member does not have any problem; 
then that is bipartisanship. It is good; it is not gridlock. But if the 
Republican Member wants something, and keep in mind there are no 
dollars involved here, and for some reason a powerful chairman does 
not, then it is legislation on an appropriation bill, it is not 
appropriate, this is not the vehicle, we have not held hearings, et 
cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
  Now let us go back to the bill itself. When we were marking up the 
bill, Mr. Speaker, the committee was looking at different projects. I 
was the one that threw out the name of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Moran] for Mr. Moran's project. Not one Democratic member, not one 
Democratic member on the subcommittee, offered Mr. Moran's project. I 
did. If there was any difference, I would ask people to speak. I did it 
because of bipartisanship. He had this project. It was authorized. It 
would be a benefit for this area. Should I have said no, and be quiet, 
and then maybe his opponent could have put out a press release and 
said, ``Aha, he's not effective because he's on the committee and he 
couldn't get it''?

  No, I did not come here to do that. That is not what my goal is. I 
think I want bipartisanship as much as any Member of this House. So, 
through my efforts, and if there is any difference from the committee, 
they can get up and disagree, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] 
got his project.
  I think we Republicans, and I speak to Republican Members on this 
side, and those in their offices that are listening have to remember 
something. If we take over, or when we become the majority, I do not 
think we should operate like the Committee on Rules, like the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], what he has done to us. I do not 
think we ought to do what the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] 
did. I do not think we ought to do it. I think, if we are the chairmen, 
we are to follow the Golden Rule which is in the Bible. It says: ``You 
do unto others as you would have them do unto you.''
  Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, ``I'm not one that wants to join 
the lynch group whereby we say, `Hey, we have our vengeance. We are 
angry. Do you remember the time back in 1986 when they did that?'''
  No, that is not the approach we should take because the arrogance of 
power brings parties down and brings people down.
  Also, for our side, it is like the bullies in the schoolyard. These 
guys can be bullies at times. I say to my colleagues, ``If they are not 
picking on you sometime, you think, well, they are not picking on me so 
I'll be quiet. They'll pick on somebody else. Believe me, if they don't 
pick on you today, they will pick on you some other time.''
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] constantly speaks out 
about the roads in this area and what he thinks should be done. 
Frankly, I am not afraid of the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation. I do not know that they can do anything, and, if they 
do it, we will talk about it publicly because, as these things happen 
over the future, I will come to this well day after day, week after 
week, year after year, to talk about these issues because frankly I 
think the more their is exposure in this body, the better it is for the 
body.
  I want to make this other point which came to me as we were debating 
the treasury appropriations bill last night, and I was thinking about 
this. When I was growing up, we lived in an area in south Philadelphia. 
My mom told the story, and I can remember it so well. My mom wore 
glasses. She had astigmatism in the eye, and in those days young kids 
just did not wear glasses. One of the kids in the neighborhood in south 
Philadelphia called my mom four eyes. In fact, they used to call her 
four eyes a lot.
  My mom told the story, and I heard it over and over, that, when that 
kid grew up and had kids, his kids had to wear glasses.
  My colleagues know the expression that everything that goes around 
come around, where some people want to be more political and say, ``You 
live by the sword, you die by the sword.'' I think there is judgment in 
this earth, and everything that does go around comes back around.
  Two things popped into my mind last night when I saw the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] on the treasury bill. Last year here on the 
bill I begged that we should do something with regard to the seven 
employees who were fired at the White House travel office.

                              {time}  1120

  Mr. Speaker, do the Members remember Travelgate? Seven career people 
were ruined. Do the Members know who did that to them? It was David 
Watkins. That is David Watkins, the man that is gone. He is the man 
about whom Mr. Hoyer said last night, ``He is gone. We don't need that 
amendment. He has been fired because of the helicopter deal.''
  Everything that goes around comes back around. The other thing that 
hit me, too, because we are taking up the transportation bill under the 
leadership of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] was this: He was 
good enough last year to put money in the transportation bill to help 
those career employees who had legal fees, who had high legal fees and 
did not have PAC's, political action committees, and powerful friends 
to help them out. I contacted Mr. McLarty at the White House over and 
over and over, asking him to help with legal fees for these people, and 
they said, ``No, no, no.''
  Yesterday I come in and I hear that the President of the United 
States is now going to be faced with millions of dollars of legal fees. 
Everything that goes around comes back around.
  This is a bad rule. It is a bad precedent. I think it disgraces the 
Committee on Rules. Because of the efforts of Mr. Mineta, with Mr. 
Moakley, holding on to the power of the Committee on Rules and the 
power of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, this 
Member's amendment, which would have permitted a 1-year trial period to 
allow moms and dads and husbands and wives and other people to car-pool 
to see if it would work, was knocked out.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point this out because the 
point is being made on the other side of the aisle that they are being 
evenhanded and the reason they are flexing their majority muscle is 
because the gentleman from Virginia did not appear before the 
authorizing committee.
  In fact, the chairman of the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], sent a 
letter to the Committee on Rules on that fact. But also the Members 
need to know that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] went to the 
authorizing subcommittee, the Safety Subcommittee, with his issue and 
was denied. The committee was against Mr. Hoyer's position.
  Yet Mr. Mineta and the Committee on Rules have chosen not to protect 
the will of his own committee by allowing a point of order to be 
brought against Mr. Hoyer's position. Yet the gentleman from Virginia 
did not go before the authorizing committee, but most members, except 
for one member of the Appropriations Committee, are against the 
gentleman's position. They have chosen selectively to not protect the 
gentleman. So it is not evenhanded treatment. The majority is abusing 
its power and flexing its muscle.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I was going to make the same point. I have 
just been handed a piece of paper here, and I did not know this. If I 
had known it up in the Committee on Rules, the Hoyer amendment would 
not have been protected. The Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation said that this represents a major waiver of truck size 
and weight and is unwarranted. It was turned down.
  Mr. Mineta never bothered to tell us that. He simply said, ``It's 
O.K. We don't object to it. Even though we turned it down, but we do 
object to Mr. Wolf's position.''
  I think that is outrageous. It is partisanship, and I am going to say 
this: It is going to cease or else.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I want 
to compliment him on his statement and simply say this: What I have 
heard earlier today is absolutely right. this is a political issue and 
it is a controversial issue.
  But that is exactly what we are charged with dealing with here, and 
we should do it in an evenhanded way, but unfortunately, as has been 
said by virtually everyone, the way this rule has been handled, that 
did not happen. We treated the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], a 
Democrat, in one way, and we treated my friend in the well differently. 
He happens to be a Republican as opposed to a Democrat.
  So it seems to me that as we look at what clearly is a tough issue, 
because there is controversy surrounding it, we should allow the House 
to work its will in a fair and balanced manner. This rule demonstrates 
very clearly that Lord Acton was correct when he said, ``Power 
corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.''
  Unfortunately, we as a minority are being mistreated, and tragically, 
my friend and classmate, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], who 
has fought long and hard on this issue, is at the short end of the 
stick. That is why we need to defeat this rule, go back upstairs, and 
bring back something that is a little more balanced.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and in closing, I would 
like to ask the Members on both sides to defeat the rule. Again, I want 
to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], and the leadership on my side, 
because I think the fact that they have taken this position is 
encouraging, because we want to make sure that if it happens here, it 
never happens again.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of the rule.
  I rise in opposition to this rule for two reasons. First, it 
represents the height of partisan hypocrisy. And, second, it deals a 
body blow to families who live in northern Virginia.
  Let's call this story ``The Tale of Two Provisions,'' because there 
are two measures in H.R. 4556, the fiscal year 1995 transportation 
bill, which have been the topic of conversations with the authorizing 
committee this past week because both were deemed subject to procedural 
challenge on the floor.
  One of these provisions would allow overweight trucks to operate on 
the interstate highway system in Maryland. The other one would allow 
husbands and wives to form carpools eligible to use I-66 in northern 
Virginia.
  Under this rule, guess which provision is protected and which one is 
hung out to dry?
  That's right. Trucks win out over family carpools.
  Now I don't think American voters are going to see the logic in that 
so maybe I should explain further that the provision concerning 
overweight trucks was offered by a member of the majority party and of 
the leadership in this Congress, Mr. Hoyer.
  On the other hand, I, a member of the minority party, offered the 
provision allowing the Governor of Virginia the option of a 1-year 
trial of HOV-2 on I-66 inside the Capital Beltway. And under this 
provision, the Governor would retain the flexibility to return the 
carpool restrictions to three-occupant vehicles at any time during the 
1-year trial period if HOV-2 proved unsuccessful.
  I should further explain that my language concerning HOV-2 is opposed 
by two other members of the majority party, Mr. Moran and Mr. Mineta. 
Working with Mr. Moran, Mr. Mineta, chairman of the Public Works 
Committee, persuaded another member of the majority, Mr. Moakley, who 
chairs the Rules Committee, to make the HOV-2 provision subject to a 
point of order when we later take up the transportation bill.
  What this means is that, without debate, and without a vote, the HOV-
2 provision for families can be--and will be--deleted from the bill. On 
the other hand, the killer truck provision stays in.
  If you're scratching your head by now, let me say:
  This is not about fairness.
  This is not about good government.
  This is not about effective transportation policy.
  This is not even about logic.
  This is about raw partisan muscle. The kind of routine power play 
around here that sacrifices what's good for families on the alter of 
sheer partisan politics.
  Allowing two-person carpools on I-66 inside the beltway would help 
moms and dads trying to get to work in the morning, while perhaps 
dropping off their children along the way at school or child care 
centers. Currently these husbands and wives are in single-occupant 
automobiles cutting through residential areas on such arteries as Route 
50, Spout Run, the George Washington Memorial Parkway, Wilson 
Boulevard, Columbia Pike, Old Dominion Drive, Military Road, Lee 
Highway, and even neighborhood streets.
  Allowing two-person carpools would reduce this traffic congestion in 
residential communities. It would take cars off residential streets and 
put them on I-66, a currently underutilized facility which was built to 
handle through commuter traffic.
  Allowing HOV-2 would potentially reduce the number of automobiles by 
half, thus helping this regin meet clean air goals.
  Allowing HOV-2 would encourage carpooling and greater use of I-66, a 
facility that is currently underused.
  Allowing HOV-2 would improve safety on I-66 and provide consistency 
in the carpool requirements inside and outside the beltway.
  But most important, HOV-2 would help families in northern Virginia.
  On a broader scale, it is interesting to note that, nationwide, HOV-2 
is currently employed in most urban areas including: Houston; 
Pittsburgh; Honolulu; Denver; San Diego; Hartford, CT; Los Angeles; 
Seattle; Orange and Riverside Counties, CA.
  During recent hearings held by the transportation appropriations 
subcommittee, witnesses from Marin County, CA, testified that their 
carpooling requirements on the Highway 101 facility had been dropped 
from HOV-3 to HOV-2 and that usage had greatly increased. This was 
primarily due, they testified, to spouses being able to commute 
together.
  The reason HOV-2 is the most prevalent carpooling requirement around 
the country is because HOV-3 doesn't work as well. It takes at least 
five commuters to sustain an HOV-3 carpool, due to emergencies, doctor 
appointments, illnesses, and other schedule disruptions. With HOV-2, it 
is easier to form a carpool because in many households, there will be 
at least two people willing to accommodate each other's schedules. Or 
perhaps, two neighbors in a community.
  Who can be against this? No one can oppose this provision on its 
merits, because it is the right thing to do.
  This provision is subject to a knockout blow only because of pure 
partisan politics. That hurts American families. That creates traffic 
jams. That further lowers the credibility of this body. And that is 
wrong.
  And let me say to the other side of aisle that I am keenly 
disappointed in these tactics because I have always tried to consider 
each proposal in a bipartisan manner, based on fairness and the merits 
of the issue. As an example, and my colleague from northern Virginia is 
aware of this, during our subcommittee's markup of this bill, I went to 
bat for funding for the Fairfax County Parkway, a project that was 
requested by Mr. Moran. In fact, I was the only one who stuck up for 
Mr. Moran. Funding for Mr. Moran's project was subsequently added 
during the full committee markup. It would not have been added had I 
not brought it to the subcommittee's attention and asked for its 
inclusion.
  We should not forget that this bill contains two provisions that 
should be treated the same under the parliamentary rules of this body. 
But only the one offered by a member of the majority party is being 
protected, and the other one is not. We should not forget that the 
majority's truck proposal has won out over the minority's family 
carpool measure.
  This rule is unfair. It is partisan. And it will hurt families. I 
urge my colleagues to vote no.


                   uniform hov-2 on i-66 in virginia

  Nationwide, HOV-2 requirements are currently employed in most urban 
areas including: Houston; Pittsburgh; Honolulu; Denver; San Diego; 
Hartford, CT; Los Angeles; Seattle; Orange and Riverside Counties, CA.
  During recent hearings held by the transportation appropriations 
subcommittee, witnesses from Marin County, CA, testified that their 
carpooling requirements on the Highway 101 facility had been dropped 
from HOV-3 to HOV-2 and that usage had greatly increased primarily due 
to the ability of spouses to commute together.
  Trying uniform HOV-2 inside and outside the Capital Beltway on I-66 
would be family-friendly because spouses could commute together in the 
Washington area as well.
  Also, this would reduce the number of single-occupant vehicles 
currently cutting through residential neighborhoods because these 
commuters are unable to arrange for enough fellow carpoolers to allow 
them to use the highly under-utilized I-66 HOV facility.
  Finally, there are general provisions in the bill that are 
legislatively similar, section 332 and section 337, and both were the 
subject of conversations with the Public Works Committee. In the 
interest of bipartisanship and fairness, both provisions should be 
treated alike.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wise). The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me stipulate that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf] is a valued, constructive, and important Member of this body. He 
said that he felt he was on good terms with, I think, all the members 
of the Committee on Rules and both sides, and that certainly is the 
case. I hope in no way is this matter felt to be a matter of 
personalities.
  Mr. Speaker, in order to try to bring this back to the issues, I 
yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the authorizing 
committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of discussion about the 
partisan nature of the discussion surrounding this rule. I am sorry it 
has to be brought to those terms, but I would like to try to explain 
where we are on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, a complaint has been made against this rule that it 
protects the provision of the bill regarding truck weights in Maryland 
but does not protect the provision regarding HOV lanes on I-66 in 
Virginia. The implication is that the rule favors the author of one 
provision, Mr. Hoyer, over the author of the other provision, Mr. Wolf.
  Let me state categorically that there has been no favoritism here. 
The decision on each provision was made on the merits of that 
provision, as it should be.
  In the case of the Maryland truck provision, the situation is that in 
the State of Maryland today there is a grandfather provision which 
allows short 3-axle dump trucks to operate at up to 65,000 pounds. This 
is a result of Federal law which sets truck weight limits for the 
Interstate Highway System, but which also grandfathers prior State 
limits on truck weights.
  I make no bones about the fact that the Maryland 3-axle 65,000 
grandfather is one of the worst in the country. But it is allowed by 
existing Federal law and will go on being allowed by Federal law if we 
do not act.
  What is important here is that the State of Maryland has tried to 
limit the damage done by these trucks, and the way they have been able 
to do that is they have passed a State law saying that they will end 
the 65,000 pound 3-axle grandfather which they now have and replace it 
with a 70,000 pound 4-axle requirement. The requirement to switch to a 
4-axle truck would significantly reduce the loading per axle, would 
significantly reduce wear and tear on the Interstate System and would 
reduce braking distances and therefore improve safety.
  The 4-axle requirement basically takes the same payload and spreads 
it over more axles, wheels, and bearing area. The result is less damage 
to the Interstate and better safety performance. That is what this 
provision would have us agree to. It take a bad situation and makes it 
better, exactly what we ought to be trying to do around here.
  If we do not enact this provision, the new State law in Maryland 
automatically self-destructs and the 3-axle trucks get to go on doing 
more damage and having longer braking distances, and in fact new trucks 
can be added to the Maryland fleet which operate at 3-axle and 65,000 
pounds.
  There is no question in my mind that we are acting in the public 
interest by enacting this provision.
  With regard to the I-66 HOV lanes, the section of I-66 inside the 
beltway was built under an agreement with then-Secretary Bill Coleman. 
Part of that agreement required specific HOV policies on that stretch 
of the highway. It is now HOV-3 and some, particularly in the areas 
further out to the west, would like to see that reduced to HOV-2. The 
Coleman agreement makes it difficult, if not impossible, to make that 
change. Mr. Wolf proposed overturning the Coleman agreement by Federal 
statute, and that is the provision now in this bill.
  However, this provision not only overturns the Coleman agreement, it 
also overrides all local say in whether the HOV policy ought to be 
changed. In any other metropolitan area we would not impose a Federal 
transportation mandate of this importance without the full 
participation of the affected local and regional governments. We sought 
a reasonable compromise on this issue. We offered to accept Mr. Wolf's 
language in effect modifying the Coleman agreement if it were modified 
to make it subject to approval by the National Capital Region 
Transportation Planning Board. The Board is the legally designated 
Metropolitan Planning Organization, just as every metropolitan area in 
this country has an MPO, and the representatives of the various 
affected local governments all sit on it.
  In any other metropolitan area this kind of transportation policy 
change would be subject to the approval of this kind of a board.
  But in this case the compromise we suggested was not accepted. As a 
result the provision now in the bill stands for the proposition that 
the Federal Government should make local transportation decisions and 
then impose those decisions on local and regional representatives of 
the people, without regard to what anybody other than the Federal 
Government thinks about those decisions.
  This is contrary to what we have tried to do in recent years, which 
is to move more transportation decision-making down to the local and 
regional levels.
  It simply is not fair, it is not good policy, and it is not in the 
public interest to trample the wishes of local and regional governments 
in transportation planning issues. That is why we have opposed this 
provision and that is why it is not protected. I would hope that those 
around here who most frequently complain about big-brother Government 
in Washington would be sensitive to those concerns.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think it should be clear that our views on 
these issues were not based on which Member asked for which provision. 
All the Members involved are respected colleagues and friends. But our 
job is to do the best we can to protect the public interest, and that 
means we look at the provision and what it would do, not at who offers 
it. The idea that if a provision from one Member, no matter how 
beneficial it may be to the public interest, is accepted, that another 
provision, no matter how injurious to the public interest, must be 
accepted, is ridiculous and would be a complete abdication of our 
responsibilities to the public.
  We have worked hard this year, as has the Appropriations Committee, 
to work out problems and disputes where we possibly can. Some 
provisions have been dropped, some have been accepted, and some have 
been modified. As a result, all rules issues were worked out in advance 
and were protected by the rule, except the I-66 issue where Mr. Wolf 
felt he could not accept the same role for local government as would 
apply in any other metropolitan area of the country.
  This is not a partisan issue, it is an issue of policy, of fairness 
to local governments, and of setting proper and consistent limits on 
intrusions by the Federal Government into local issues.
  There are many provisions in this bill which are protected under the 
rule and which happen to have been advocated by Republicans--provisions 
by Mr. Petri and Mr. Packard came to mind. Those provisions were agreed 
to because they made sense, not because of who offered them.
  I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I know my friend from Texas [Mr. DeLay] has 
something he would like to say, and I want him to have that 
opportunity. If he needs additional time beyond what the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss] has, I will give him some time. I need to honor some 
requests for time over here.
  Mr. DeLAY. The Chairman has made some statements, and I would like to 
ask him questions.
  Mr. GORDON. If he will stick around, let me first honor requests for 
time from Members over here, and then I will give the gentleman 
additional time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wise). The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Gordon] has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. DeLay].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Gordon] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] for being so kind.
  Mr. Chairman, you made an eloquent statement about no favoritism at 
all, and you based your decision on the merits. You defended the 
decision of supporting the Hoyer amendment on the merits. Yet you just 
contradicted in your own speech the decision made by your own 
subcommittee that did not support the Hoyer amendment when it was 
brought before you.
  I cannot understand how you call that no favoritism or being 
evenhanded, if you are contradicting your own committee.

                              {time}  1140

  Maybe the gentleman could explain it to me.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas is absolutely 
correct. When we received this information at the subcommittee level 
originally, they said that they opposed what was being considered. We 
then looked at it in terms of what is, from an engineering perspective, 
and we met with the Department of Transportation for the State of 
Maryland as late as Monday afternoon to go over as to what is the 
difference between a three-axle truck, short-axle truck and its weight 
limitation and a four-axle truck at a higher weight.
  We then found that in terms of the impact on road surface that we 
would be better off----
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is holding hearings today on 
this issue and he could address the Hoyer amendment today in his own 
committee today. Why would he protect the Hoyer amendment today when he 
is holding hearings on this issue and he could address it today?
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta].
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, the reason being that the Maryland statute 
self-destructs and so that would then put us in the position of having 
a truck that does more damage to the road if we do not deal with this 
now because of the Maryland statute self-destructing.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINETA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. The hearing was yesterday. 
Yesterday he did not address it. It seems to me that what is happening 
here is killer trucks are winning over family carpools.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to clarify some points that have been 
in this debate. I do so reluctantly, because I have a great deal of 
respect for my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. I 
know, as his other colleagues in the House know, him to be a capable 
and conscientious legislator. But there has been an accusation, really, 
that this provision by the Committee on Rules has been decided on a 
partisan basis. I need to shed some further information on this issue 
that I think both my colleagues and the people that might be listening 
in the audience need to be aware of, because those who have not 
protected this provision through the rule on this bill have done so 
consistent with substantive authorizing legislation and intent.
  Now, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], I know, feels strongly 
that he is doing the right thing with this provision. Clearly, he is 
doing the right thing for his constituents. The gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Wolf] has many constituents who live outside the Beltway, who 
drive into Arlington or Washington, DC, and who use Interstate 66. They 
are able to use an HOV two-lane up to the Beltway. But when it gets 
into my district, which is just inside the Beltway, it changes to HOV-
3. And thus we get a substantial amount of congestion at that 
intersection.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] believes that not only is it 
in the best interest of his constituents, but also of my constituents, 
because it will relieve congestion on residential streets that are 
taken to avoid I-66 and, in fact, that it is a 1-year experiment.
  However, I think the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] would have to 
agree that it is not so clear that this provision is in the interest of 
my constituents inside the Beltway as it is clearly in the interest of 
his constituents outside of the Beltway.
  For one thing, if we change people's driving habits, even if only for 
1 year, it is extremely difficult to reverse it, to get people then to 
go back to HOV-3. I do not know that there has ever been a case where 
we reduced HOV requirements and then reinstated them. So this is an 
important change.
  Now, when we make changes that affect local governments, particularly 
that are controversial in nature, the Interstate Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act, ISTEA we call it, the acronym, specifically said we 
should rely upon the judgment of local governments to make these 
decisions. That was an important part of the ISTEA legislation. In 
fact, we have a number of organizations that have been set up to make 
these kinds of decisions.
  First of all, we should look to the local government that is 
responsible for the jurisdiction that is exclusively affected by this 
change, which is Arlington County. It only affects Arlington County. 
The entire Arlington County Board is opposed to this change. In fact, 
I-66 was an extremely controversial highway. For years they fought it. 
And they finally agreed to let I-66 go through Arlington County.
  The point is, we have a written agreement that was contingent upon I-
66 going through Arlington County that says that we have to consult the 
Transportation Planning Board before we can make any change in HOV 
requirements. This does not consult the Transportation Planning Board. 
The TPB, in fact, voted to oppose this, as did the Northern Virginia 
Transportation Commission. This is a very controversial issue. To put 
this kind of legislation in an appropriations bill without consulting 
with local governments who are unanimously opposed to it, I think, 
would be a mistake.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the Committee on Rules for 
granting me this time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, this was done in 1983 from HOV-4 to HOV-3, and 
there was no controversy. It was successful. Second, the Governor has 
asked, this will help more of our constitutents, the people at Tyson's 
Corner, and it will take cars off the residential streets and put them 
on the road where they belong. I think they support it as well as 
anybody in the region.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me conclude by reminding the membership that this is an open rule 
on a very important transportation bill that affects the 
infrastructure, the competitiveness of this country. This is a 57-page 
bill of which we have spent a long and, I think, constructive debate on 
approximately one page. But the fact of the matter is this is an 
important bill.
  It is 57 pages. It is an open rule. Everyone has the opportunity to 
come in and have their amendments.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule.
  This rule reflects the fact that there is peace between the 
Appropriations and authorizing committees, at least in terms of those 
matters under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation relating to highway and transit programs.
  This rule rightly protects from points of order those highway and 
transit provisions which have been reviewed by the authorizing 
committee, largely as part of the National Highway System designation 
legislation which recently passed this body by a vote of 412 to 12.
  I would submit that this rule should enjoy the same level of support 
as did the NHS bill.
  Under this rule, we will be able to consider an appropriations 
measure that complements the NHS legislation and which further advances 
those programs provided for under the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991.
  I commend the Rules Committee for fashioning this rule, and I commend 
it to the House.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wise). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is rejected, would it 
be in order for me to offer an amendment to the rule to strike the 
exception that leaves the Wolf provision subject to a point of order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. While the Chair cannot give a specific 
anticipatory ruling, in the opinion of the Chair, should the previous 
question be rejected, any germane amendment to the rule may be offered.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the Chair's answer is ``yes'' and that would 
be my intention.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair stands by his statement. Any 
germane amendment can be offered.
  Mr. GOSS. I was not asking a parliamentary inquiry about germaneness. 
I wish to know whether or not that would be in order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has responded.
  The question is on ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GORDON. 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.
  Pursuant to the provisions of 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 vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of passage of the resolution.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 177, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 248]

                               YEAS--241

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--177

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Andrews (NJ)
     Bentley
     Chapman
     Crapo
     Dellums
     Istook
     McCurdy
     Reynolds
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Snowe
     Tauzin
     Tucker
     Washington
     Wheat
     Whitten

                              {time}  1209

  Mr. RIDGE and Mr. COLLINS of Georgia changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. SISISKY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  Mr. DEUTSCH changed his vote from ``present'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wise). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239, 
noes 180, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 249]

                               AYES--239

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--180

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Andrews (NJ)
     Bentley
     Chapman
     Derrick
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     McCurdy
     Mica
     Reynolds
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Tucker
     Washington
     Wheat
     Whitten

                              {time}  1218

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Andrews of New Jersey for, with Mrs. Bentley against.
       Mr. Tucker for, with Mr. Mica against.

  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.

                          ____________________