[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]


                              {time}  1600
 
  Like the middle-class taxpayer, however, we will take the savings. A 
million is a lot of money. But the savings highlighted by the GAO are 
just the beginning. More could be achieved.
  For example, the ICC still requires motor carriers to file their 
rates despite having been stripped of its authority to set rates 15 
years ago. According to GAO, these filings are a formality that go 
unchallenged 99 percent of the time. The total cost? $15 million. We 
could save that.
  The ICC also employs almost 50 workers every year to enforce safety 
and insurance regulations, responsibilities also handled by the DOT. 
While the specific tasks may be different, the general mission is the 
same. We do not need two bodies doing the same work. Total cost? $4 
million. We could save that $4 million.
  Finally, there are the five Commissioners with their salaries, their 
staffs, administrative costs. Eliminate those positions, and we will 
save even more. Take advantage of the above reforms, and we could save 
up to $150 million in 5 years, and that is a lot of money in anybody's 
book.
  But this debate is about more than saving money. It is also about 
good Government.
  ICC supporters argue that the Commission is worth the extra cost, in 
part because the Commission often considers cases in open sessions, 
voting before the public. More than half of the votes they make do not 
occur in open session.
  The issue of accountability: ICC supporters claim the Commission is 
more accountable than nonindependent agencies. This begs the question. 
Accountable to whom? Not the President. The ICC is independent. Not the 
American voter. In other words, the ICC lacks a great deal in 
accountability.
  Finally, we are told that only the ICC has the expertise to do the 
job. I have two responses to this claim.
  First, if the experts are civil servants, we can move them from the 
ICC to the DOT. It is all the same Government and the same civil 
service.
  Second, while I'm sure our four current Commissioners are very 
talented, past Commissioners have been appointed with no transportation 
background at all. There is no minimum qualification being an ICC 
Commissioner--anybody can be appointed.
  In other words, the expertise issue is just another smokescreen.
  But beyond the savings issue and the concerns of good Government, 
this is a debate about process.
  Our opponents say we have the cart before the horse. They say we 
should work through the committee process, transfer the ICC to the DOT, 
and then offer to cut the ICC's funding.
  This offer reminds me of the story of the old man from New Hampshire 
giving directions to the New York tourist.
  First he says, ``Go north until you come to a general store, and 
then--no, no, that's not right.''
  Then he says, ``Drive east past the apple orchard until you--no, no, 
that's not right either.''
  Finally he says, ``Come to think of it, you can't get there from 
here.''
  After 8 years of inaction on my bill to sunset the ICC, it is obvious 
the committees with ICC oversight have no interest in considering our 
legislation.
  We either pass this amendment today, or we do not ``get there from 
here.''
  So the choice before the House is a simple one. Do we transfer the 
ICC to the DOT to benefit consumers and middle-class taxpayers, or do 
we continue our legacy of protecting a few special interests at the 
expense of everyone else?
  A vote for this amendment is a vote to cut spending, make Government 
more accountable, and reject a legislative process designed to protect 
special interests.
  This amendment will save money, make Government more efficient, and 
make our regulation of surface transportation more accountable. In my 
mind, that is a simple choice.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
pending amendment offered by Mr. Kasich, Mr. Condit, and others.
  There may have been a time when there was a real need for the ICC. 
That time has come and gone.
  Today, we have the opportunity to make a modest but important step in 
reducing Government spending. We can also improve the efficiency of the 
bureaucracy.
  Since the ICC's creation, we have enacted into law numerous pieces of 
legislation that have made it basically obsolete. With the increased 
levels of deregulation, the drop in ICC's jurisdiction leaves it as an 
agency with little left to do--an agency in search of a mission--an 
agency whose existence is difficult to justify.
  Let us take the step today to help bring the Federal Government into 
the 1990's. Let us pass the Kasich-Condit amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234, 
noes 192, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 250]

                               AYES--234

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Orton
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Cantwell
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Blackwell
     Brown (CA)
     Dooley
     Ford (MI)
     Grams
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Lewis (GA)
     McCurdy
     Michel
     Reynolds
     Tucker
     Washington

                              {time}  1624

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Grams for, with Mr. Tucker against.

  Ms. LAMBERT and Messrs. TOWNS, JEFFERSON, WILSON, GONZALEZ, and KLEIN 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. McMILLAN, Mrs. LLOYD, Mrs. BYRNE, Mr. TEJEDA, and Mr. BERMAN 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    amendment offered by mr. kasich

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to offer the amendment that we have at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kasich: Page 57, after line 7, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 339. The amount otherwise provided by this Act for 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY--
     Salaries and Expenses'' is hereby increased by $26,300,000, 
     of which amount $8,300,000 shall be derived from amounts 
     provided for in this Act under the heading ``INTERSTATE 
     COMMERCE COMMISSION--Salaries and Expenses''.

  Mr. KASICH (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 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I first want to say to the gentlemen who 
have had such interest in this that it is clearly our intention, with 
the passage of this amendment, I say to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Mineta] and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift], that I 
personally want to be as helpful as I can to make sure we have a smooth 
transition. I want to thank them for the tenor of the debate, and I 
want to thank, not just the Republicans, but the Democrats as well, 
for, I think, what is a significant moment in this House when 
Republicans and Democrats could come together, debate together and vote 
together to bring some change to this town.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to transfer $18 million over 
to the Secretary of Transportation, $15 million of which would be used 
for severance pay and the other $3 million for the purposes of a smooth 
transition, and it also transfers over the user fees that are now 
generated by the ICC over to the Department of Transportation.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KASICH. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Notwithstanding the fact that I did not agree 
with the gentleman on the last amendment, Mr. Chairman, I want to 
congratulate him on his victory and say that this amendment merely 
conforms the bill to the action that the House has just taken. Given 
the vote just taken, this amendment is appropriate, and we would accept 
the amendment on this side.

                              {time}  1630

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of the bill through page 57, line 7, be considered as read, 
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   Payments for Directed Rail Service


                      (limitation on obligations)

       None of the funds provided in this Act shall be available 
     for the execution of programs the obligations for which can 
     reasonably be expected to exceed $475,000 for directed rail 
     service authorized under 49 U.S.C. 11125 or any other Act.

                        PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

                      Panama Canal Revolving Fund

       For administrative expenses of the Panama Canal Commission, 
     including not to exceed $11,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses of the Board; not to exceed $5,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses of the 
     Secretary; and not to exceed $30,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses of the Administrator, 
     $50,030,000, to be derived from the Panama Canal Revolving 
     Fund: Provided, That none of these funds may be used for the 
     planning or execution of nonadministrative and capital 
     programs the obligations for which are in excess of 
     $540,000,000 in fiscal year 1994: Provided further, That 
     funds available to the Panama Canal Commission shall be 
     available for the purchase of not to exceed forty-three 
     passenger motor vehicles for replacement only (including 
     large heavy-duty vehicles used to transport Commission 
     personnel across the Isthmus of Panama), the purchase price 
     of which shall not exceed $19,500 per vehicle.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                 Rebate of Saint Lawrence Seaway Tolls


                    (harbor maintenance trust fund)

       For rebate of the United States portion of tolls paid for 
     use of the Saint Lawrence Seaway, pursuant to Public Law 99-
     662, $9,319,000, to remain available until expended and to be 
     derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, of which not 
     to exceed $132,000 shall be available for expenses of 
     administering the rebates.

             WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

             Interest Payments and Repayments of Principal

       For payment of obligations incurred pursuant to Public Law 
     96-184 and the Initial Bond Repayment Participation 
     Agreement, $664,666,667, to remain available until expended, 
     which shall be used only to repay principal to the Federal 
     Financing Bank for the Washington Metrorail construction 
     loan; and in addition, such amounts as are necessary for 
     payment to the Federal Financing Bank, of accrued interest 
     and premium, if any, for such loan.

                               TITLE III

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 301. During the current fiscal year applicable 
     appropriations to the Department of Transportation shall be 
     available for maintenance and operation of aircraft; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; purchase of liability 
     insurance for motor vehicles operating in foreign countries 
     on official department business; and uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
       Sec. 302. Funds for the Panama Canal Commission may be 
     apportioned notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1341 to the extent 
     necessary to permit payment of such pay increases for 
     officers or employees as may be authorized by administrative 
     action pursuant to law that are not in excess of statutory 
     increases granted for the same period in corresponding rates 
     of compensation for other employees of the government in 
     comparable positions.
       Sec. 303. Funds appropriated under this Act for 
     expenditures by the Federal Aviation Administration shall be 
     available (1) except as otherwise authorized by the Act of 
     September 30, 1950 (20 U.S.C. 236-244), for expenses of 
     primary and secondary schooling for dependents of Federal 
     Aviation Administration personnel stationed outside the 
     continental United States at costs for any given area not in 
     excess of those of the Department of Defense for the same 
     area, when it is determined by the Secretary that the 
     schools, if any, available in the locality are unable to 
     provide adequately for the education of such dependents, and 
     (2) for transportation of said dependents between 
     schools serving the area that they attend and their places of 
     residence when the Secretary, under such regulations as may 
     be prescribed, determines that such schools are not 
     accessible by public means of transportation on a regular 
     basis.
       Sec. 304. Appropriations contained in this Act for the 
     Department of Transportation shall be available for services 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals 
     not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for a 
     Executive Level IV.
       Sec. 305. None of the funds for the Panama Canal Commission 
     may be expended unless in conformance with the Panama Canal 
     Treaties of 1977 and any law implementing those treaties.
       Sec. 306. None of the funds in this Act shall be used for 
     the planning or execution of any program to pay the expenses 
     of, or otherwise compensate, non-federal parties intervening 
     in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
       Sec. 307. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal 
     year, nor may any be transferred to other appropriations, 
     unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 308. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     for the planning or implementation of any change in the 
     current federal status of the Volpe National Transportation 
     Systems Center, and none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for the implementation of any change in the current 
     federal status of the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research 
     Center: Provided, That the Secretary may plan for further 
     development of the Volpe National Transportation Systems 
     Center and for other compatible uses of the Center's real 
     property: Provided further, That any such planning does not 
     alter the federal status of the Center's research and 
     development operation.
       Sec. 309. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract 
     pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures 
     are a matter of public record and available for public 
     inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing 
     law, or under existing Executive order issued pursuant to 
     existing law.
       Sec. 310. (a) For fiscal year 1995 the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall distribute the obligation limitation for 
     Federal-aid highways by allocation in the ratio which sums 
     authorized to be appropriated for Federal-aid highways that 
     are apportioned or allocated to each State for such fiscal 
     year bear to the total of the sums authorized to be 
     appropriated for Federal-aid highways that are apportioned or 
     allocated to all the States for such fiscal year.
       (b) During the period October 1 through December 31, 1994, 
     no State shall obligate more than 25 per centum of the amount 
     distributed to such State under subsection (a), and the total 
     of all State obligations during such period shall not exceed 
     15 per centum of the total amount distributed to all States 
     under such subsection.
       (c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) provide all States with authority sufficient to prevent 
     lapses of sums authorized to be appropriated for Federal-aid 
     highways that have been apportioned to a State, except in 
     those instances in which a State indicates its intention to 
     lapse sums apportioned under section 104(b)(5)(A) of title 
     23, United States Code;
       (2) after August 1, 1995, revise a distribution of the 
     funds made available under subsection (a) if a State will not 
     obligate the amount distributed during that fiscal year and 
     redistribute sufficient amounts to those States able to 
     obligate amounts in addition to those previously distributed 
     during that fiscal year giving priority to those States 
     having large unobligated balances of funds apportioned under 
     sections 103(e)(4), 104, 144, of title 23, United States 
     Code, and under sections 1013(c) and 1015 of Public Law 102-
     240;
       (3) not distribute amounts authorized for administrative 
     expenses and funded from the administrative takedown 
     authorized by section 104(a), Title 23 U.S.C., the Federal 
     lands highway program, the intelligent vehicle highway 
     systems program, and amounts made available under sections 
     1040, 1047, 1064, 6001, 6005, 6006, 6023, and 6024, of Public 
     Law 102-240: Provided, That amounts made available under 
     section 6005 of Public Law 102-240 shall be subject to the 
     obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways and highway 
     safety construction programs under the head ``Federal-Aid 
     Highways'' in this Act; and
       (4) notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     withhold from initial distribution the fiscal year 1995 
     Federal-aid highways obligation limitation set aside for 
     Interstate Construction Discretionary projects: Provided, 
     That the Secretary shall distribute only after August 1, 
     1995, such obligation limitation withheld in accordance with 
     this section to those States receiving Interstate 
     Discretionary allocations.
       (d) During the period October 1 through December 31, 1994, 
     the aggregate amount of obligations under section 157 of 
     title 23, United States Code, for projects covered under 
     section 147 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 
     1978, section 9 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981, 
     sections 131(b), 131(j), and 404 of Public Law 97-424, 
     sections 1061, 1103 through 1108, 4008, and 6023(b)(8) and 
     6023(b)(10) of Public Law 102-240, and for projects 
     authorized by Public Law 99-500 and Public Law 100-17, shall 
     not exceed $325,155,150.
       (e) During the period August 2 through September 30, 1995, 
     the aggregate amount which may be obligated by all States 
     pursuant to paragraph (d) shall not exceed 2.5 percent of the 
     aggregate amount of funds apportioned or allocated to all 
     States--
       (1) under sections 104 and 144 of title 23, United States 
     Code, and 1013(c) and 1015 of Public Law 102-240, and
       (2) for highway assistance projects under section 103(e)(4) 
     of title 23, United States Code,

     which would not be obligated in fiscal year 1995 if the total 
     amount of the obligation limitation provided for such fiscal 
     year in this Act were utilized.
       (f) Paragraph (e) shall not apply to any State which on or 
     after August 1, 1995, has the amount distributed to such 
     State under paragraph (a) for fiscal year 1995 reduced under 
     paragraph (c)(2).
       Sec. 311. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     for salaries and expenses of more than one hundred and ten 
     political and Presidential appointees in the Department of 
     Transportation: Provided, That none of the personnel covered 
     by this provision may be assigned on temporary detail outside 
     the Department of Transportation.
       Sec. 312. Not to exceed $850,000 of the funds provided in 
     this Act for the Department of Transportation shall be 
     available for the necessary expenses of advisory committees.
       Sec. 313. The limitation on obligations for the programs of 
     the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any 
     authority under section 21 of the Federal Transit Act, 
     previously made available for obligation, or to any other 
     authority previously made available for obligation under the 
     discretionary grants program.
       Sec. 314. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
       Sec. 315. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     1995 pay raises for programs funded in this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 316. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to plan, finalize, or implement regulations that would 
     establish a vessel traffic safety fairway less than five 
     miles wide between the Santa Barbara Traffic Separation 
     Scheme and the San Francisco Traffic Separation Scheme.
       Sec. 317. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     airports may transfer, without consideration, to the Federal 
     Aviation Administration instrument landing systems (along 
     with associated approach lighting equipment and runway visual 
     range equipment) which conform to Federal Aviation 
     Administration design and performance specifications, the 
     purchase of which was assisted by a Federal airport aid 
     program, airport development aid program or airport 
     improvement program grant. The Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall accept such equipment, which shall 
     thereafter be operated and maintained by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration in accordance with agency criteria.
       Sec. 318. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to award a multiyear contract for production end items that 
     (1) includes economic order quantity or long lead time 
     material procurement in excess of $10,000,000 in any one year 
     of the contract or (2) includes a cancellation charge greater 
     than $10,000,000 which at the time of obligation has not been 
     appropriated to the limits of the government's liability or 
     (3) includes a requirement that permits performance under the 
     contract during the second and subsequent years of the 
     contract without conditioning such performance upon the 
     appropriation of funds: Provided, That this limitation does 
     not apply to a contract in which the federal government 
     incurs no financial liability from not buying additional 
     systems, subsystems, or components beyond the basic contract 
     requirements.
       Sec. 319. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     made available for planning and executing a passenger 
     manifest program by the Department of Transportation that 
     only applies to United States flag carriers.
       Sec. 320. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the provisions 
     of section 1038(d) of Public Law 102-240.
       Sec. 321. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     except for fixed guideway modernization projects, funds made 
     available by this Act under ``Federal Transit Administration, 
     Discretionary grants'' for projects specified in this Act or 
     identified in reports accompanying this Act not obligated by 
     September 30, 1997, shall be made available for other 
     projects under section 3 of the Federal Transit Act, as 
     amended.
       Sec. 322. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     funds appropriated before October 1, 1993, under any section 
     of the Federal Transit Act, as amended, that remain available 
     for expenditure may be transferred to and administered under 
     the most recent appropriation heading for any such section.
       Sec. 323. (a) Of the budgetary resources available to the 
     Department of Transportation (excluding the Maritime 
     Administration) during fiscal year 1995, $65,120,000 are 
     permanently canceled.
       (b) The Secretary of Transportation shall allocate the 
     amount of budgetary resources canceled among the Department's 
     accounts (excluding the Maritime Administration) available 
     for procurement and procurement-related expenses. Amounts 
     available for procurement and procurement-related expenses in 
     each such account shall be reduced by the amount allocated to 
     such account.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the definition of 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2).
       Sec. 324. Of the funds appropriated in Public Law 103-122 
     for railroad-highway crossings projects, $20,000,000 shall be 
     available for costs, not to exceed 80 percent, of a project 
     to reduce rail-highway conflicts on M-59 near Pontiac, 
     Michigan, and a project on Bristol Road near Flint, Michigan, 
     including $500,000 which shall be made available to improve 
     and upgrade Maple Road at Bishop Airport, Michigan: Provided, 
     That of the funds appropriated in Public Law 94-387 for 
     railroad-highway demonstration projects, $486,000 in 
     unobligated balances shall be made available for the rail 
     relocation project in Lafayette, Indiana.
       Sec. 325. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be 
     made available to any State, municipality or subdivision 
     thereof that diverts revenue generated by a public airport in 
     violation of the provisions of the Airport and Airway 
     Improvement Act of 1982, as amended.
       Sec. 326. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to implement or enforce regulations that would result in the 
     withdrawal of a slot from an air carrier at O'Hare 
     International Airport under section 93.223 of title 14 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations in excess of the total slots 
     withdrawn from that air carrier as of October 31, 1993 if 
     such additional slot is to be allocated to an air carrier or 
     foreign air carrier under section 93.217 of title 14 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 327. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended to design, construct, erect, modify 
     or otherwise place any sign in any State relating to any 
     speed limit, distance, or other measurement on any highway if 
     such sign establishes such speed limit, distance, or other 
     measurement using the metric system.
       Sec. 328. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be 
     made available for any airport development project, or 
     projects, proposed in any grant application submitted in 
     accordance with title V of Public Law 97-248 (96 Stat. 671; 
     49 U.S.C. App. 2201 et seq.) to any public agency, public 
     authority, or public airport that imposes a fee for any 
     passenger enplaning at the airport in any instance where the 
     passenger did not pay for the air transportation which 
     resulted in such enplanement, including any case in which the 
     passenger obtained the ticket for the air transportation with 
     a frequent flyer award coupon.
       Sec. 329. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     continue the federally-funded research and development center 
     (FFRDC) relationship between the Federal Aviation 
     Administration and the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems 
     Development after March 31, 1995: Provided, That the Federal 
     Aviation Administration may continue this work after March 
     31, 1995 only by full and open competition among all 
     interested parties, including the Center for Advanced 
     Aviation Systems Development.
       Sec. 330. Funds provided in this Act for the Department of 
     Transportation working capital fund (WCF) shall be reduced by 
     $13,253,000, which limits fiscal year 1995 WCF obligational 
     authority for elements of the Department of Transportation 
     funded in this Act to no more than $88,750,000: Provided, 
     That such reductions from the budget request shall be 
     allocated by the Department of Transportation to each 
     appropriations account in proportion to the amount included 
     from each account for the working capital fund.
       Sec. 331. Funds provided in this Act for bonuses and cash 
     awards for employees of the Department of Transportation 
     shall be reduced by $6,012,680, which limits fiscal year 1995 
     obligational authority to no more than $25,500,000: Provided, 
     That this provision shall be applied to funds for Senior 
     Executive Service bonuses, merit pay, and other bonuses and 
     cash awards.
       Sec. 332. Section 127(a) of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following: ``With respect 
     to the State of Maryland, laws and regulations in effect on 
     June 1, 1993, shall be applicable for the purposes of this 
     subsection.''.
       Sec. 333. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the provisions 
     of Public Law 101-500.
       Sec. 334. Funds received from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources 
     for expenses incurred for training and for reports' 
     publication and dissemination may be credited to the Research 
     and Special Programs account.
       Sec. 335. Funds received from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources 
     for expenses incurred for training may be credited to the 
     Federal Highway Administration's ``Limitation on General 
     Operating Expenses'' account, the Federal Transit 
     Administration's ``Transit Planning and Research'' account, 
     and to the Federal Railroad Administration's ``Railroad 
     Safety'' account, except for State rail safety inspectors 
     participating in training pursuant to section 206 of the 
     Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970.
       Sec. 336. (a) Subsection (b) of section 1045 of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 
     Stat. 1994) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Eligibility for Federal Assistance.--
       ``(1) General rule.--Upon approval of any substitute 
     project or projects under subsection (a)--
       ``(A) the costs of construction of the eligible transitway 
     project for which such project or projects are substituted 
     shall not be eligible for funds authorized under section 
     108(b) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956; and
       ``(B) a sum equal to the amount that would have been 
     apportioned to the State of Wisconsin on October 1, 1994, 
     under section 104(b)(5)(A) of title 23, United States Code, 
     if the Secretary had not approved such project or projects 
     shall be available to the Secretary from the Highway Trust 
     Fund to incur obligations for the Federal share of the costs 
     of such substitute project or projects.
       ``(2) Availability.--Amounts made available under paragraph 
     (1)(B) shall be available for obligation on and after October 
     1, 1994. Amounts made available under paragraph (1)(B) shall 
     remain available until expended and shall be subject to any 
     limitation on obligations for Federal-aid highways 
     established by law.
       ``(3) Applicability of title 23 u.s.c.-- Amounts made 
     available under paragraph (1)(B) shall be available for 
     obligation in the same manner as if such funds were 
     apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; 
     except that the Federal share of the cost of any project 
     carried out with such funds shall be determined in accordance 
     with section 103(e)(4)(D) of such title.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subsection (c).--The second sentence of subsection (c) 
     of section 1045 of such Act is amended by striking ``the 
     authority of section 103(e)(4) of title 23, United States 
     Code,'' and inserting ``section 21(a)(2) of the Federal 
     Transit Act''.
       (2) Subsection (d)(1).--Subsection (d)(1) of section 1045 
     of such Act is amended by striking ``project for'' and all 
     that follows through the period at the end thereof and 
     inserting ``transit project.''.
       (3) Subsection (d).--Subsection (d) of section 1045 of such 
     Act is amended by striking paragraph (3) and by redesignating 
     paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
       (c) Reduction of Interstate Construction Authorization.--
     Section 108(b) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 is 
     amended by striking ``$1,800,000,000 for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1996'' and inserting ``$1,800,000,000, 
     reduced by the amount made available under section 
     1045(b)(1)(B) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991, for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 1996''.
       Sec. 337. (a) Uniform HOV-2 Demonstration Project on I-66 
     in Virginia.--Notwithstanding any other law or any prior 
     decision of the Secretary of Transportation, the Governor of 
     Virginia shall have the authority to carry out, during all of 
     fiscal year 1995, a demonstration project on Interstate 
     Highway 66 (I-66) in Fairfax and Arlington Counties, 
     Virginia, to determine the impact of applying a uniform high-
     occupancy vehicle restriction to the portion of I-66 that is 
     between the District of Columbia and Interstate Highway 495 
     (I-495) and the portion of I-66 that is west of I-495.
       (b) Project Requirements.--
       (1) Uniform hov restriction.--Except as provided in 
     paragraph (2), under the demonstration project established 
     under this section, the uniform high-occupancy vehicle 
     restriction applied to the 2 portions of I-66 described in 
     subsection (a) shall be vehicles carrying 2 or more persons.
       (2) Authority of governor of virginia.--During the 1-year 
     demonstration period under this section, the Governor of 
     Virginia shall retain the flexibility to return the high-
     occupancy vehicle restriction applicable to the portion of I-
     66 that is between the District of Columbia and I-495 to 
     vehicles carrying 3 or more persons, or to make any other 
     revisions in the demonstration project that the Governor 
     determines are necessary.
       (c) Study and Report.--If the Governor of Virginia makes 
     use of the authority granted in subsection (a), the Governor 
     shall--
       (1) carry out an assessment of the effects of the uniform 
     high-occupancy vehicle restriction under the demonstration 
     project established under this section; and
       (2) upon completion of the assessment, submit to the 
     Congress and to the Secretary of Transportation a report 
     setting forth the results of the assessment and the 
     demonstration project.
       Sec. 338. (a) Federal Line of Credit.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out a demonstration of the construction of public 
     toll roads in Orange County, California, authorized by 
     section 129(d) of title 23, United States Code, there is 
     hereby appropriated $8,000,000 for the Secretary to enter 
     into an agreement to make a line of credit available, with a 
     principal amount not to exceed $120,000,000 to the public 
     entity or entities with the statutory authority to construct 
     such facilities.
       (b) Effective Period.--The line of credit under this 
     section shall be available for draws during the period 
     beginning on the date of completion of construction and 
     ending on the last day of the tenth calendar year following 
     the date construction of the facilities is completed.
       (c) Purposes.--The line of credit under this section shall 
     be available to pay the costs of extraordinary repair and 
     replacement of the facilities, unexpected Federal or State 
     environmental restrictions, operation and maintenance 
     expenses of the facilities, and debt service on tax-exempt or 
     taxable obligations financing the facilities.
       (d) Limitations.--
       (1) Capital expenditures.--With respect to capital 
     expenditures, draws on the line of credit under this section 
     shall only be made if and to the extent proceeds from the 
     sale of the obligations issued by the public entity or 
     entities which otherwise would be available for such purposes 
     are exhausted, or are otherwise unavailable for the payment 
     of such capital expenditures.
       (2) Expenses.--With respect to expenses, including 
     operation and maintenance expenses and debt service, a draw 
     on the line of credit under this section shall only be made 
     if revenues from toll operations and capitalized interest are 
     insufficient (or are otherwise unavailable) for such 
     purposes.
       (3) Per year.--No more than 10 percent of the total 
     principal amount of the line of credit under this section 
     shall be available for draws in any one year.
       (4) Third party creditor rights.--No third party creditor 
     of the public entity or entities shall have any right against 
     the Federal Government with respect to draws on the line of 
     credit under this section.
       (5) Availability for particular costs.--There is no 
     guaranteed availability of proceeds of the line of credit 
     under this section for the payment of any particular cost of 
     the public entity or entities which might be financed under 
     this section.
       (e) Interest Rate and Repayment Period.--Any draws (except 
     for operation and maintenance expenses) on the line of credit 
     under this section shall accrue interest at the 30-year 
     United States Treasury bond rate beginning on the date such 
     draws are made and shall be repaid in not more than 30 years; 
     except that any draws under the line of credit for operation 
     and maintenance expenses shall accrue interest at the 3-year 
     United States Treasury note rate beginning on the date such 
     draws are made and shall be repaid in not more than 3 years.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to that portion of the 
bill?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
337.
  Mr. Chairman, that section would in part authorize a demonstration 
project on Interstate Highway 66 in Arlington County, VA, to determine 
the impact of applying a high occupancy restriction to the portion of 
Interstate 66 that is between the District of Columbia and the 
Interstate Highway 495, the Beltway, the portion of I-66 that is west 
of the Beltway.
  As such, section 337 is legislation in an appropriations bill and in 
violation of rule XXI of the standing rules of the House of 
Representatives. Clause 2 of rule XXI prohibits legislation on general 
appropriations bills. Section 337 is in fact legislation. The authority 
to undertake what is proposed in section 337 does not currently exist.
  The lead-in to section 337 specifically states, ``notwithstanding any 
other law or any prior decision of the Secretary of Transportation.'' 
Section 337 in fact would alter previous policy decisions on this 
issue.
  So, Mr. Chairman, section 337 on its face is legislation in a general 
appropriations bill, and thus in violation of rule XXI. Accordingly, I 
insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] seek 
recognition?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I wish to respond.
  In responding to the point of order, I want to tell the body I am 
very disappointed that this has happened. There is HOV-2, for Members 
who were not here during the debate, in Houston, TX, and there was no 
point of order. Pittsburgh, Honolulu, Denver, San Diego, Hartford, 
Connecticut, Los Angeles, Seattle, Orange and Riverside Counties.
  By this point of order being taken and what it will result in, it 
will now result in neighborhoods continuing to be clogged and safety 
problems, because outside the Beltway on 66 it is HOV-2, and inside the 
Beltway it is HOV-3. There is sign clutter there. What we would have 
done is taken cars off of the residential streets like Columbia Pike, 
and Lee Highway, and Wilson Boulevard, and in Fairfax and different 
places like that and put it on 66 where it belongs.
  Second, from an environmental point of view, this is a very, very bad 
idea.
  Third, it would enable moms and dads, particularly under the 
legislation that we have passed setting up onsite day-care. In fact, we 
have day-care centers here in the Capitol. We have put together the 
legislation to create 100 day-care centers in this region around here, 
whereby a mon or dad could drive to work with their son or daughter. 
Also, a husband or wife could come. And to object to this is absolutely 
crazy. I think it shows you how much this body is out of touch.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say I am disappointed with regard to this, 
because this was a request made by the Governor of Virginia on behalf 
of a 1-year trial period, and I think it is a mistake and is going to 
hurt a lot of people.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Boucher). The Chair is ready to rule on the point 
of order. The language with respect to which the point of order is 
raised constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill. Therefore, it 
violates rule XXI and the point of order is sustained.
  Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. BORSKI

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Borski: Page 50, strike lines 8 
     through 10.

  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself 
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment would strike the provision in H.R. 4556 
that would prohibit the department of Transportation from using any 
funds to enforce the Sanitary Food Transportation Act.
  Despite the urgent need that was shown when this act was passed in 
1990, this provision in the bill would cut off any money for 
enforcement with no plans to provide a replacement.
  In February, I personally asked the acting Administrator of RSPA, who 
was testifying under oath, about the administration's plans for this 
act.
  The answer I received was that there would be a briefing for my 
staff.
  But since that time, despite our repeated requests, we have received 
no further information from DOT.
  If there is a better, more efficient way to enforce the act, we would 
be happy to listen to those proposals.
  We must not accept a situation where food and garbage are being 
carried in the same trucks--and chemicals and fruit juices are being 
transported in the same tank trucks.
  Four years ago, our Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 
heard about one truck that made 23 different trips--carrying chemicals, 
cattle feed, fruit juice, chocolate, cooking oils, and more chemicals.
  We heard about the same trucks being used to transport garbage from 
New Jersey to the Midwest and food from the Midwest to the supermarkets 
of the Northeast.
  The Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 1990 directed the Department 
of Transportation to work with other Federal agencies that have 
similar, but not identical responsibilities.
  There was clearly a gap in the law and DOT was the agency to fill it. 
We couldn't tolerate food and garbage sharing the same trucks in 1990 
and we should not tolerate it now.
  This provision of the appropriations bill will return this situation 
to the way it was before the Sanitary Food Transportation Act--when 
some companies thought they could make extra money backhauling garbage 
and chemicals in the same trucks they use for food and drink.
  We must not go back to our constituents and tell them that 
transporting the food they buy in their supermarkets in garbage trucks 
is acceptable because it doesn't happen very much.
  We cannot go back to our constituents and tell them that the fruit 
juice they bought is fine even though it was carried in a truck that 
had been hauling chemicals.
  If we don't want to have to tell these things to our people, we must 
not allow the enforcement of the Sanitary Food Transportation Act to be 
completely gutted.
  That's what this provision of H.R. 4556 would do without any plan to 
replace DOT in the enforcement of the act.
  It makes no sense to prohibit DOT from enforcing this act without 
deciding how they should be replaced.
  Future discussions may result in DOT being given an enforcement or 
coordinating role. We should decide that role through the regular 
legislative process, not through the prohibition in section 333.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and then we can discuss 
how this program should be changed to make it more effective.
  Let's not make it impossible for DOT to participate in the solution. 
Vote ``yes'' on the amendment.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I 
want to defend the provision of our bill. But in the interest of 
compromise and saving the Members time, I am prepared to accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this year, the administration's fiscal year budget 
request for the Department of Transportation included no funds or 
personnel to implement the Sanitary Food Transportation Act [SFTA]. The 
Department indicated to our subcommittee during our fiscal year 1995 
hearings that it did not believe that food contamination as a result of 
a practice called backhauling was a serious problem. Moreover, the 
Department told us that it believed that other agencies--primarily, the 
Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration within 
the Department of Health and Human Services--should have the lead 
responsibility for food safety enforcement.
  In addition, we understood that the administration was considering 
legislation to significantly modify SFTA such that the Department of 
Transportation would not be the lead agency to implement its 
requirements.
   Mr. Chairman, after examining this issue in our hearings over the 
past few years, the committee agreed with the administration's proposal 
to eliminate funding to implement SFTA. Consistent with that position, 
the fiscal year 1995 Transportation appropriations bill also includes a 
limitation prohibiting the use of funds to implement SFTA.
  While I am concerned that our citizens have a safe food supply, I 
continue to have reservations about the fact that SFTA would impose a 
whole new set of food safety enforcement responsibilities on DOT. SFTA 
would require DOT to hire and train an entire cadre of food safety 
inspectors at the expense of meeting other important aviation, rail, 
and pipeline safety needs when there is limited evidence that a problem 
exists. In fact, since 1989, only 13 incidents of food contamination 
due to the method of Transportation have been documented.
  At the same time that SFTA would require a huge new bureaucracy at 
the Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
and the Food and Drug Administration currently have over 7,000 food 
safety inspectors. These agencies have the necessary statutory 
authority to address any food contamination issues that might occur 
during the loading, offloading and actual transport of food 
commodities.
  I would note also that Vice President Gore's National Performance 
Review [NPR] recommended that food safety responsibilities be 
streamlined and consolidated into one agency. Certainly, implementing 
SFTA in the Department of Transportation is counter to the NPR 
recommendations.
   Mr. Chairman, our committee report directs DOT to resolve, in 
consultation with USDA and HHS, how the intent of SFTA can best be met, 
whether statutory changes are needed, and how enforcement 
responsibilities among DOT, USDA, and FDA will be shared, and to report 
back to the committee prior to conference action on the fiscal year 
1995 Transportation appropriations bill. We believed that this is a 
reasonable approach to addressing any problems that might currently 
exist in the safe Transportation of food. I understand that the DOT is 
close to finalizing a package of legislative amendments to SFTA that 
will help to make the law more workable and less costly.
  I would hope that I could get a commitment from the gentleman that he 
will work with his colleagues on the Public Works Committee and the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as the Department of 
Transportation, to work toward enactment of these needed modifications 
to SFTA so that the DOT will be able to share enforcement 
responsibilities more equally with the USDA and FDA.
  I believe that the provision in the bill to limit the use of funds to 
implement SFTA is a good Government, commonsense measure. I believe 
that we should not create another regulatory bureaucracy to provide for 
the safe Transportation of food, when better coordination among the 
existing bureaucracies will accomplish the same purpose. However, if I 
could get agreement that the authorizing committees will take another 
look at this issue, I will accept the amendment.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I can assure the 
gentleman, I have spoken with the Chairman of the Committee on Public 
Works and Transportation, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], 
and the Surface Committee Chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Rahall], and we stand ready, willing and able to work with you and 
the Department of Transportation to make this program work better.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, as a 
cosponsor of the Safe Food and Transportation Act, I want to thank 
Chairman Carr for accepting this amendment. I think this whole episode 
has sort of underscored the poor job the Department did in advising the 
authorizing committee, our committee, of the problems they were having 
in implementing this bill. But if this amendment did not pass, they 
were not going to be able to do anything about making it any better. So 
I think this clears the way for us to really get on with trying to 
resolve how best to implement this very important act.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the leadership of the 
gentleman on this issue.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns that have been 
voiced about the implementation of the Sanitary Food Transportation Act 
[SFTA] by the Department of Transportation. When the Energy and 
Commerce Committee helped to develop this legislation in 1990, our 
intent was to curb certain unsafe practices that involved the 
transportation of potentially harmful nonfood products in the same 
motor and rail vehicles that carry food and food products.
  We believed at that time that additional measures were needed to 
ensure the quality and safety of the Nation's food supply. However, we 
did not intend that an entirely new food inspection and enforcement 
bureaucracy be created at the Department of Transportation.
  I would support efforts to achieve a sensible and coordinated 
enforcement program. I understand that the Department of Transportation 
plans to submit a legislative package to Congress to modify the 
Sanitary Food Transportation Act in a way that will promote these 
objectives.
  Our committee will review these legislative proposals to ensure that 
we protect the public health and safety through proper food 
transportation practices in a manner that is both cost-effective and 
manageable.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment which 
would allow continued support of the Sanitary Food Transportation Act 
of 1990 by the Department of Transportation which passed overwhelmingly 
in the 101st Congress.
  The Sanitary Food Transportation Act [SFTA] was the direct result of 
the Public Works and Transportation Committee becoming aware of 
alarming activities being carried out by some members of the 
transportation industry. Those activities consisted of moving waste 
materials and nonfood products in vehicles and tankers that were also 
used to transport food.
  Although examination of the issue of these activities throughout the 
hearing process did not show any documented cases of food contamination 
resulting from these activities; there was clearly the threat of such 
harm to the public.
  One of the most prevalent issues regarding such activities was the 
practice of backhauling municipal and solid waste in the same trucks 
that carry food products primarily in the Northeast and Midwest, where 
refrigerated trucks used to have food and nonfood consumer products 
were loaded with baled solid waste for return trips. Similarly, cargo 
tanks that previously transported edible liquids were being used for 
the backhauling of chemicals.
  Now, in the Department of Transportation appropriations bill, and 
with the full cooperation and indeed suggestion of the DOT, there is a 
provision that prohibits the use of DOT funds for the implementation, 
administration, or enforcement of Public Law 101-500, the Sanitary Food 
Transportation Act of 1990. The appropriators will tell you that the 
implementation of SFTA better belongs in the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture [USDA] and the Food and Drug Administration [FDA]. They 
will also say that implementing SFTA in the Department of 
Transportation runs counter to Vice President Gore's National 
performance Review which they say recommends food safety 
responsibilities be streamlined and consolidated in one agency.
  I want to share with my colleagues in the House a few excerpts from 
then Senator Gore's floor statement during the Senate passage of SFTA 
on September 20, 1990.

       Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to 
     ask for passage of S. 2393, the Safe Food Transportation Act.
       Ten months ago, I introduced S. 1904, the Clean Food 
     Transportation Act, because backhauling--the dangerous 
     practice of hauling garbage or hazardous chemicals in one 
     direction and then without proper cleaning, using the same 
     vehicle to transport food--is inexcusable, and it has to 
     stop.
       Right now, it is legal for a trucker to use the same tank 
     to ship hazardous materials one way and food the other. 
     Truckers from all across the country have come forward with 
     horror stories about backhauling. One trucker recalled 
     hauling asphalt emulsion in one direction and table wine for 
     the return trip. Another trucker told how he had washed out 
     his tanker more than 15 times but still found a substance 
     traced to a load of plastic resin hauled 2 months before, a 
     substance that remained in the tanker through loads of 
     vegetable oil, whisky and chocolate--products that could be 
     on any of our kitchen shelves.
       I am especially pleased that the Safe Food Transportation 
     Act, includes the provision of my bill which would involve 
     the participation of the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance 
     Program inspectors in enforcing the decontamination 
     requirements of the bill. Hopefully, these inspectors will be 
     able to help stop drivers who falsify shipping documents by 
     stating that the previous loads were food grade, drivers like 
     those who testified before the House committees last summer. 
     The bill requires DOT rulemaking to make sure drivers and 
     shippers verify that appropriate records and markings are 
     maintained regarding food-carrying vehicles.

  In conclusion, I want to point out that the USDA and the FDA have 
always had the authority to address food contamination issues, but 
despite their enforcement authority the issue of transporting food in 
contaminated vehicles was fast becoming a national problem which had 
reached the local and national news media, to include a segment on the 
``60 Minutes'' television program.
  I, therefore, support my distinguished colleagues, Robert Borski and 
William Clinger of Pennsylvania, the original sponsors of SFTA in 1990, 
and the sponsors of this amendment today and ask that my colleagues in 
the House join with me in agreeing to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. hefley

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to present an amendment that was scheduled to be presented in title I.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
do so only to seek an agreement with the gentleman about the time. We 
are trying to accommodate the gentleman in offering the amendment out 
of order, and I would like to do that, although I will oppose the 
amendment. On the other hand, I would hope that the gentleman would 
agree to perhaps a 15 minute debate time limit on this amendment.
  Mr. HEFLEY. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] has been very 
accommodating to me on this. I will certainly agree with the 
stipulation of 15 minutes, divided between the two.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, if that can be incorporated in 
the unanimous consent request, I would withdraw my reservation of 
objection.

                              {time}  1640

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman that 
we return to that portion of the bill so he may offer an amendment with 
debate to be equally divided for a period totaling 15 minutes, with 
one-half of that time to be managed by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley], and the other one half to be managed by the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Carr]?
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do so to 
point out that yesterday we spent 3 hours on the floor of this House 
with the majority being cajoled over the fact that we waived some 
rules. What the request is, it is essentially a request to waive the 
rules.
  I would, under the rules of the House, be absolutely within my rights 
to object to this request. I just want to point out that comity goes 
both ways.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley: Page 23, line 21, strike 
     ``$771,700,000, of which $526,700,000'' and insert 
     ``$694,530,000, of which $474,030,000''.
       Page 23, line 24, strike ``$245,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$220,500,000''.
       Page 24, line 7, strike ``$8,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$7,200,000''.

  Mr. HEFLEY (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 
Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Tuesday's edition of my hometown newspaper ran a story 
on a proposed Amtrak line that would run from Denver, CO through my 
hometown of Colorado Springs to El Paso, TX. But there is only one 
problem with that, and that is money. The proposed line would cost 
Colorado, New Mexico and Texas roughly $80 million in subsidies just to 
start it up.
  Unfortunately, that is not all it would cost. Colorado would have to 
pony up another $57 million to upgrades tracks and build stations, and 
each state would pay about 3 million annually for operating costs. And 
that is still not all.
  The Amtrak line would be a money-losing route. According to the local 
newspaper, researchers estimated that up to 120,000 people would ride 
the Denver to El Paso Rocky Express annually. That is 60,000 less than 
is needed to break even. In other words, the line is expected to cover 
only two-thirds of its costs.
  But there is still more. Last year, when I offered a similar 
amendment to cut 10 percent out of the Amtrak budget, the Washington 
Post wrote an article entitled ``Congress Should Re-invent Amtrak To 
Make It Profitable.'' In it, the article states:

       Congress' mandate to Amtrak 23 years ago was to operate 
     rail service on a for-profit basis, but the National Railroad 
     Passenger Corporation hasn't come close. Nor is it likely to 
     meet the goal it set in 1990 to eliminate the need for 
     Federal financial support for Amtrak's operations by the year 
     2000.

  To better illustrate this point, let us take a look at Amtrak's 
performance over the last 5 years. Last year, 1993, Amtrak lost $731 
million. In 1992, $712 million; in 1991, $721 million; in 1990, $703 
million, and in 1989, Amtrak lost $665 million. And the list of yearly 
losses goes on and on.
  Instead of operating as a for-profit corporation, Amtrak has managed 
to saddle this country with over $16 billion worth of debt. These 
perennial losses work out to the taxpayer subsidy of about $25 for 
every passenger. With that kind of subsidy, Braniff Airlines would 
still be flying.
  Furthermore, the Cato Institute estimates that Federal subsidies to 
Amtrak passengers are 10 to 20 times higher than those offered to 
intercity bus and air travelers.
  So the question we must ask ourselves is this, Can we really afford 
to continue this practice? Clearly, I think, the answer is no.
  Fortunately, there is a better way to run intercity rail passenger 
service. Privatization is the key to Amtrak's fiscal health. According 
to the Washington Post, ``A privatized Amtrak could make money.'' In 
fact, several countries have already privatized their once State-owned 
passenger rail services, including Sweden, Japan, and Argentina. Sweden 
may be using the ideal model. The Swedish model establishes two 
entities, the railroad operating company is required to make a profit, 
and the government is responsible for maintaining the track, similar to 
our Government building and maintaining roads, highways, and airport 
runways.
  Privatizing Amtrak could work, if given the chance. Organizations 
such as the Reason Foundation and the 1988 Presidential Commission on 
Privatization, which included members of both labor and 
management, have concluded that privatization is not an answer but the 
answer to Amtrak's problems.

  Mr. Chairman, opponents of my amendment and of privatizing Amtrak 
will argue that it is doomed to failure without Government 
intervention. It looks to me like Amtrak is doomed to failure with 
Government help.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand how on one hand Amtrak and its 
supporters can say they need more money from the taxpayers to stem the 
flow of red ink and then propose to offer a new line of service that 
will lose money. It does not make sense. At least it did not make sense 
until today, when I received a letter from the President of Amtrak 
which states:

       If you support a cut of Amtrak, you will create yet another 
     train wreck that we are not responsible for but must suffer 
     the consequences of.

  Mr. Chairman, I have come to expect this. Last year my amendment was 
blamed for a train wreck that occurred 2 days before the Transportation 
bill even was brought to the floor. Now I am being blamed for any 
accidents that might happen out in the future. That is pure 
demagoguery, and it explains why after 24 years on the public dole 
Amtrak's management is unable to fulfill its congressional mandate to 
operate on a profit basis. My amendment only cuts 10 percent from 
Amtrak's operating loss subsidy and its capital expenses subsidy, which 
amounts to a $77 million reduction. The amendment is by no means a 
panacea, but it is a start. It will save our Nation millions of dollars 
and help improve competitiveness.
  Let us show the taxpayers of this country that we are willing to do 
what it takes to get this country back on its feet. Vote for this 
amendment and let us begin to wean, we are not doing away with Amtrak 
subsidy, but begin to wean Amtrak off the Government payroll.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. In fact, 
I think it is extremely unfortunate that these amendments keep coming 
up. The House has voted repeatedly to sustain Amtrak. Usually those 
votes received at least 300 votes from this body. In fact, let me 
remind the Members that just last year, the gentleman from Colorado 
offered two similar amendments to cut Amtrak, and both were soundly 
defeated. One of those was the same amendment he offers today, to cut 
Amtrak by 10 percent. That was defeated by a vote of 271 to 153. The 
House has spoken time and time again on this issue, Mr. Chairman, and 
the gentleman from Colorado offers no significant new information this 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill proposes a lean budget for Amtrak. The 
recommended levels in this bill for Amtrak's operating and capital 
costs are over $100 million below the administration's request and even 
further below Amtrak's request. Amtrak needs all the help we can give 
them at this time, and they have new management which is taking an 
aggressive stance to improve service quality, increase maintenance, and 
provide a better overall product for Amtrak travelers. The GAO 
testified before our subcommittee this year in support of Amtrak's need 
for increased Federal support.
  Just when Amtrak is making these improvements, the gentleman offers 
an amendment which would cut 10 percent of Amtrak's Federal support--
$24.5 million from Amtrak's capital grant and $52.67 million from their 
operating grant. We have already cut the request back significantly. I 
believe what we are really saying if we pass this amendment is that we 
don't want a national passenger railroad in this country. In contrast, 
I believe the past votes of this body, including last year, strongly 
indicate that this Congress support Amtrak.
  Let me take a moment to advise the Members of the impact of this 
amendment. According to Amtrak, reductions of the magnitude would:
  Eliminate plans to initiate new service in at least six areas, 
including Seattle to Portland; Seattle to Vancouver; Raleigh to 
Charlotte; Boston to Portland, ME; Los Angeles to Santa Barbara; and 
Chicago to Madison through Milwaukee,
  Jeopardize the entire Amtrak-State partnership program, which 
provides services to Illinois, Missouri, New York, Michigan, 
California, Alabama, Wisconsin, Illinois, and North Carolina.
  Cause Amtrak to consider reducing service on routes between 
Washington and Montreal, Chicago and Seattle, and Chicago to Oakland.
  Jeopardize their plans to make much-needed improvements in aged and 
inadequate maintenance facilities in Los Angeles, Delaware, New York, 
and Indiana; and make it virtually impossible for Amtrak to procure new 
locomotives and trains which they desperately need, and replace 
defective crossties in the Northeast corridor between Washington and 
New York.
  I should also note that Amtrak currently operates some of the 
country's most critical commuter rail systems, including northern and 
southern California, Boston, Connecticut, Maryland, and northern 
Virginia. Without adequate Federal operating subsidy, Amtrak might have 
to default on those contracts, shutting down these systems until a new 
operator could be found. This would be extremely disruptive to 
commuters trying to get to work in those communities, and could have a 
ripple effect on the economies of those regions.
  I mention these impacts, Mr. Chairman, to let the Members of this 
body know that this is a very serious amendment, with serious 
consequences for our nationwide transportation system and for the 
cities and States all over this country which I just mentioned.
  This amendment is not only hurtful, Mr. Chairman, it is unnecessary. 
We have adequate funding to sustain Amtrak. This bill is within the 
total budget resources assigned to us in the congressional budget 
process. I am sorry this kind of amendment has come up once again this 
year, because I believe the will of this body has been expressed many 
times on the need for a national passenger rail system. I am not aware 
of any new information which would cause a different assessment by this 
body.
  I strongly urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of my committee, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Hefley 
amendment.
  My colleague from Colorado may see Amtrak as an easy target. Amtrak 
is struggling. But the question comes down to this--do we want to have 
a rail passenger service in the United States. And I believe that if 
you put the question to the American people the answer would be a 
resounding--yes.
  America needs and wants transportation options.
  But in order for Amtrak to thrive--it is in desperate need of help. 
Amtrak's equipment is old. They don't have enough locomotives to 
adequately provide on-time service. Amtrak's equipment maintenance 
facility is over 85 years old.
  They have been plagued with devastating equipment losses from 
accidents and natural disasters. Amtrak needs our support.
  This amendment would also impede Amtrak's very successful Northeast 
corridor--the Nation's only high-speed rail corridor. A line that 
carries nearly 11 million passengers every year. It is an generator in 
one of the most economically vital regions of our Nation.
  My colleague's amendment would cut Amtrak's funding $154 million. 
This would be devastating. If we agree that America needs Amtrak as a 
transportation option--we simply can't accept such a cut. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
think the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] has some good ideas. But 
to take this money out of Amtrak now would be, I think, devastating.

                              {time}  1650

  When Tom Downs, the administrator, head of Amtrak, came before our 
committee to testify, he showed the needs that Amtrak currently has. 
While the amendment is well-meaning, I think it would be a mistake, 
particularly at this time, to cut Amtrak to that point. Quite the 
contrary, when we look at the needs, Amtrak actually needs more money 
or needs to find a different way of paying for the service in the 
system we have in the country.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises that the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley] has 2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Carr] has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Swift], the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  (Mr. SWIFT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I think I am going to buy my esteemed 
colleague, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] a barber pole, 
because it was the symbol, years ago when barbers were also doctors, 
that when a patient came to the barber and they were ill, they bled 
them a little. Amtrak is ill. There is no question about it. The 
gentleman's solution is we will make them better because we are going 
to bleed them a little.
  GAO, Mr. Chairman, gave testimony before my subcommittee very 
recently and they said, ``Yes, Amtrak is sick.'' They were very 
diplomatic, but when we got down to what they were saying, Amtrak is 
sick because it has been starved to death. When we look around and we 
say, ``Who did that,'' it was administrations and this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, we are the trouble with Amtrak. Amtrak provides an 
energy-efficient, environmentally sound transportation alternative. Is 
it subsidized? Yes. So is virtually all the public transportation in 
the world, and in this country. Airlines are subsidized, and let me 
tell the Members, probably the most single subsidized form of 
transportation in this country is our automobiles.
  Do not bleed this to death. Do not use a medieval form of cure. Vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time 
to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] is recognized 
for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this is another example of an amendment 
where the author knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. 
Amtrak is the most environmentally sound, economic and efficient system 
of transportation we have in the country. It moves large numbers of 
people, it does it at low cost and with minimum adverse impact upon the 
environment.
  Mr. Chairman, if we were to spend our money well we would put money 
into investing in additional facilities for Amtrak so it could begin to 
make money, provide the kind of service that people want. Amtrak now 
has waiting lists of people who want service. We have to wait for a 
ticket, we have to wait to get a reservation, we have trouble getting 
from city to city on Amtrak. Why? Because we do not give them the 
capital investment and the money which they need.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill which is before us gives them less than they 
requested and less than the administration sought, and if we had spent 
the money that Amtrak asked, we might conceivably have come up with 
situation where we could begin to actually provide the service that the 
people need and to eliminate congestion on the highways and air 
pollution.
  Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment is going to be to reduce 
service, to make it harder to move people, to adversely impact the 
environment, and to trigger additional payments, because of labor 
protection agreements between Amtrak and the employees.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is probably going to cost as much as it 
is going to save and perhaps more. Mr. Chairman, it is going to set in 
place a situation where Amtrak now, which is beginning to get ahead of 
the curve of inadequate service and old and obsolete equipment, will 
begin to fall back with adverse consequences on everything else, 
including the safety, the safety of the public which is dependent upon 
Amtrak.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. It 
is nothing if not irresponsible. Mr. Chairman, I would ask Members to 
think of the future of the country, the environment. I would ask my 
colleagues to think of the needs of the traveling public, the concerns 
of the State about abating pollution from excessive automobile use, and 
I would urge that the amendment be rejected enthusiastically.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would ask the gentleman to explain to me how he really feels about 
my amendment. It is difficult to get up here, Mr. Chairman, after being 
so denounced in such a scathing fashion.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess I would like for the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Dingell], who has had many years of experience dealing with these 
kinds of issues, and since he thinks most of us that do not serve on 
his committee do not have enough experience to offer these kinds of 
amendments, I would like for him to come forward and to give us an 
amendment or a proposal that would show us down the line how we were 
going to have Amtrak privatized. Other countries are doing it, they are 
privatizing. I would like for us to have a way so we could see the 
light down there.
  Mr. DINGELL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. I am the one who presided, Mr. Chairman, over the sale 
of Conrail. We were able to sell Conrail and did. As a matter of fact, 
I saw to it that the sale was done through a stock offering. This was 
the sensible way, put it out on the public and let them buy shares in 
it.
  How, I ask my friend, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], and I 
have great respect for him and great affection, how are we going to 
sell a railroad which has to be subsidized, which costs millions of 
dollars a year more than it earns, to intelligent purchasers of 
securities on the market, given the fact that the securities laws 
require us to disclose and tell the truth about the situation in which 
we are engaged?
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, that is the 
very point, I would say to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. 
That is what we ought to be doing, is working up the answer to that 
``how.''
  I have a newspaper article which says, ``Ottawa To Kill Its $1.6 
Billion Subsidy for Transportation.'' Yes, Mr. Chairman, this was a 
temporary thing. It was supposed to be a temporary subsidy. We have had 
23, this will be 24 years, of this kind of subsidy. One of the speakers 
said we are starving it to death. Over the last 10 years it has lost 
each year between $600 million and $800 million. I do not quite call 
that starving.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
could go into great detail about the role of Amtrak as part of our 
overall national transportation policy, and the need to keep it in 
place in that capacity. But I do not think that is really necessary 
here, given the dollars-and-cents realities of either eliminating or 
substantially reducing Amtrak's funds. The harsh fact of life is that 
when Amtrak was first established, Congress provided in the Rail 
Passenger Service Act that every Amtrak worker is entitled to a full 
year's severance pay for every year he has worked there, up to a 
maximum of 6 years. Since most Amtrak workers have at least 6 years of 
seniority, that means that for almost every Amtrak worker terminated in 
this upcoming fiscal year, Amtrak will owe six times the worker's 
annual pay.
  Mr. Chairman, what does this mean in overall terms? Well, the last 
time Amtrak estimated the labor-protection costs of a shutdown in 1990, 
the overall labor protection bill was $2.6 billion. Of that, $765 
million would be due in the first year. To but it another way, if we 
delete Amtrak's funding this fall, the Government will owe the 
equivalent of 3 or 4 years of Amtrak funding in labor protection, but 
the public will be getting no train service for that money. And 
remember, these numbers have undoubtedly become bigger since 1990.
  Even a reduction such as this amendment proposes would produce 
proportionately labor protection liabilities.
  This situation comes about because of the underlying laws governing 
Amtrak. I share the goals of many Members in trying to make Amtrak as 
lean as possible and let its new management try to rationalize the 
route structure and operations.
  Mr. Chairman, until Congress changes the labor protection laws, 
Amtrak is stuck with a huge ball-and-chain in the form of crippling 
labor protection liabilities that are triggered every time routes are 
changed or eliminated. Unlike the freight railroads, who are required 
by law to pay labor protection payments only in certain defined 
transactions, Amtrak has to pay it for every termination of an employee 
caused by discontinuing a train. In fact, Amtrak even has to pay full 
labor protection if the employee in question can be kept on the 
payroll, but must be relocated more than 30 miles in order to continue 
working. In other words, the employee can treat a 30-mile relocation as 
a termination for purposes of collecting his 6 years of pay.
  Given these realities, Mr. Chairman, regardless of whether one would 
like to see a reformed Amtrak as I would, or no Amtrak at all, as some 
other Members would, this amendment will not achieve any fiscal 
savings. We have to reform the labor protection requirements first; 
otherwise, this amendment will mean spending more of the taxpayers' 
money next year--not less--and getting no transportation service in 
return.
  Mrs. BENTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my friend from Colorado, Mr. 
Hefley, that the deficit desperately needs to be reduced, but reducing 
it at the expense of Amtrak--which is already underfunded--is, frankly, 
a horrible idea.
  Mr. Chairman, I expect this amendment to lose by a wide margin 
because even the most fiscally conservative Member of this body realize 
the importance of Amtrak to this country's transportation needs.
  Amtrak, this country's nationwide passenger service corporation 
operates over 250 intercity trains a day over 24,000 miles of rail line 
serving 525 communities in every State but four in the continental 
United States. Each year Amtrak carries more than 40 million 
passengers--about 22 million intercity passengers and 18 million 
metropolitan commuters.
  With the adoption of this amendment--a 13 percent reduction in 
Amtrak's budget--the services Amtrak provides will be reduced severely.
  When these services cease, not only will Amtrak workers be affected, 
but the riding public as well. Amtrak's equipment will begin to 
deteriorate to the point that the riding public will no longer care to 
ride Amtrak, and will find other means of transportation.
  Furthermore, there is a safety factor involved. Amtrak is one of the 
safest modes of transportation in our country today, but without a 
fully funded program, the safety systems on the equipment will begin to 
deteriorate, possibly causing or contributing to accidents which could 
result in serious injury, and possible death, to workers and the riding 
public.
  Amtrak workers have struggled for years to improve the quality of 
service they provide to the public, and also to improve Amtrak's 
revenue to cost ratio. The corporation has come a long way over the 
last 10 years. With the passage of this amendment, Amtrak will be 
unable to continue to provide the quality service that they strive to 
provide and of which they are so proud.
  As Members of Congress deeply concerned with the efficient and safe 
movement of people and commodities, which enhances economic development 
throughout our country I strongly urge you all to vote against the 
Hefley amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 103, 
noes 326, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 251]

                               AYES--103

     Allard
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Canady
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards (TX)
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Goss
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Nussle
     Packard
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Synar
     Talent
     Thomas (WY)
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--326

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Collins (IL)
     Grams
     Hilliard
     McCurdy
     Michel
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Rush
     Tucker
     Washington

                              {time}  1716

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Grams for, with Mr. Tucker against.

  Mr. CONYERS and Mr. SLATTERY changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. HOBSON, and Mr. 
McCOLLUM 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 this portion of the 
bill?


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 57, after line 7, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 339. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment by considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, before I proceed, I yield to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut], the outstanding young freshman 
from northeastern Ohio.
  (Mr. FINGERHUT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I asked the gentleman to yield to me just for a moment 
just to say thanks to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Carr].
  The first Member of Congress whom I ever met in my life was the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr]. I met him when I served as an 
intern for him when I was a junior in college.
  As a freshman Member of this body, there is no Member of Congress who 
I believe has done more to look out for new Members, to teach us, to 
show us how to serve our districts. As a leader on his subcommittee, he 
has cared a lot about the process by which we keep our country moving 
forward on transportation. In this bill particularly, he has once again 
helped northeast Ohio. I thank him for that.
  Mr. Chairman, I am strongly supportive of this bill.
  I simply want to say to Bob Carr that I am going to miss him in this 
body.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, earlier, the comments of the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolfe], relative to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr], probably were wise words for all of 
us. I think we all feel the same way, and we will miss our chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is the same amendment that was offered 
last year. I would ask the committee to accept it and approve the 
amendment and to keep it in conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Carr].

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. CARR of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is basically the same amendment that was offered 
last year by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. I salute the 
gentleman for his diligence and dedication to the American worker. We 
accept the amendment. The gentleman's commitment has been unwavering 
throughout his tenure in the House. I have no problem with the 
amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with the amendment, and I support the 
amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I encourage the effort to get everyone 
to buy American goods. And I thank the chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to this portion of the bill?
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] 
in a brief colloquy regarding a couple of projects in my district. I 
would like to clarify that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] and I 
discussed including some language in the committee report for Highway 
41 and railroad consolidation projects in California.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEHMAN. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am familiar with the issues the gentleman raises. I 
am familiar with both these projects and will endeavor to address these 
issues further in the conference.
  Mr. LEHMAN. I appreciate that and thank the gentleman for his 
assistance on all these matters.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this portion of the 
bill? If not, the Clerk will read the balance of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Transportation 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995''.

  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, 
and, first, I take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Boucher] for his services today as chairman and presiding 
officer.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the 
bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation 
that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do 
pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Mazzoli) having assumed the chair, Mr. Boucher, 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. 4556) 
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related 
agencies for fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other 
purposes had directed him to report the bill back to the House with 
sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be 
agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any 
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  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 passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 363, 
noes 59, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 252]

                               AYES--363

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--59

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Boehner
     Bunning
     Cardin
     Crane
     Crapo
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Fawell
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallo
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hughes
     Istook
     Klein
     Kyl
     Leach
     McHugh
     McInnis
     Menendez
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Pombo
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Stump
     Thomas (WY)
     Torricelli
     Walker
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bachus (AL)
     Collins (IL)
     Grams
     Hilliard
     Hyde
     McCurdy
     Michel
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Rush
     Tucker
     Washington

                              {time}  1749

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Grams against.

  Mr. KLEIN, and Mr. ZELIFF changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. LEWIS of Florida, and Mr. KLUG changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________