[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 132 (Tuesday, September 20, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4556, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4556) making appropriations for 
the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, with Senate 
amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.


            motion to instruct conferees offered by mr. wolf

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Wolf of Virginia moves that the managers on the part of 
     the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the bill, H.R. 4556, be instructed to disagree 
     to the amendment of the Senate numbered 89.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Michigan rising in 
opposition to this motion?
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I will not oppose the motion, but 
will claim the appropriate amount of time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this motion. I ask for one-
third of the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] will 
be recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] 
will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Nadler] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, during the debate on my motion to instruct the conferees 
today, I want to highlight two large projects, the Pennsylvania Station 
redevelopment project in New York City and the Corridor H Highway 
across central West Virginia.
  In its version of H.R. 4556, the fiscal year 1995 transportation 
appropriations bill, the House did not fund either of these two 
projects, which will drain scarce resources from other transportation 
needs across the country. And the House was right.
  My motion to instruct asks the conferees on behalf of the House to 
insist on the House position with respect to the Penn Station project, 
which is zero funding for fiscal year 1995, and I will enumerate the 
reasons for offering this motion.
  It is not possible to include the West Virginia Corridor H project in 
the motion to instruct because it is tucked neatly away in Senate 
report language which lists the projects included in the $352 million 
appropriated for highway demonstration projects. Of that $352 million, 
the State of West Virginia is allocated $165 million or nearly half of 
the total account.
  I have written to all the Members of this body about Corridor H, but 
before we get into that, please allow me to discuss the substance of my 
motion to instruct--the Penn Station redevelopment project.
  Specifically, the $40 million in fiscal year 1995 funding the Senate 
has directed to this project would be used to fund engineering, design, 
and construction activities necessary to convert the James A. Farley 
Post Office in New York into an intercity railroad passenger station 
and commercial center.
  The House committee decided not to fund this project for some very 
good reasons. And I also should note here that when the House bill was 
considered on the floor, not one single objection was heard concerning 
the committees' decision not to fund the Penn Station project.
  The reasons it was not funded are basic:
  The project was first included in the 1992 Amtrak reauthorization 
bill. In that legislation, Amtrak was directed to prepare a feasibility 
study predicated upon completion of the project without Federal Funds. 
Despite these instructions, the feasibility study submitted by Amtrak 
estimated that approximately $92 to $132 million in Federal funds would 
be needed.
  The project is not authorized. The proponents will tell you that 
authorization is imminent, but I think most of us know that the Amtrak 
bill is hung up on labor issues.
  The project was not included in the internal budget request of either 
the Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] or of the Department of 
Transportation [DOT].
  The project was not requested by Amtrak this year, even though Amtrak 
is stated by proponents to be the primary beneficiary of this project.
  The proponents will argue that they are not robbing Peter to pay 
Paul, and that this project will not deplete scarce Amtrak capital. 
Well if you believe that, then you also believe that tax dollars grow 
on trees in a forest that knows no boundaries. If we do this large Penn 
Station project, then it seems to me that we have less to provide for 
Amtrak subsidies. And any way you cut it, it will increase operation 
costs for Amtrak through higher rental payments. If you vote for the 
Penn Station/Farley project, you are voting for higher fares.
  Amtrak, FRA, and DOT officials are all being good sports about this 
project now that word has come down from the White House that this 
project must be funded.

  But, it is no wonder Amtrak did not ask for this project. When Amtrak 
officials came before our committee, they indicated that capital funds 
were already so oversubscribed and overleveraged that the 
railroad is not welcome at the banks anymore. However meritorious the 
Penn Station/Farley project is, it simply cannot be justified in light 
of Amtrak's current fiscal condition.
  And, other commuter transit properties in the country could also be 
hurt by this $315 million project, which seeks $100 million from the 
Federal Government, through the draining of scarce resources.
  There also remains the dilemma of a local match for this project. The 
proponents will tell you that a memorandum of agreement, hurriedly 
executed just last month, requires the city and the State to contribute 
$50 million each for a total local match of $100 million. Therefore, 
with $200 million slated to come from Federal, State, and local 
sources, only $115 million would come from incremental retail revenues 
made possible by the redevelopment, by historic tax credits and by 
improvements made by the Postal Service to the Farley Building.
  It is important to note that the sole owner of the Farley Building, 
the U.S. Postal Service, is not even a party to this MOA. All that has 
been elicited from the Postal Service is a letter from Postmaster 
General Runyon pledging to ``work in good faith'' toward a ``mutually 
beneficial plan and transaction.''
  But it is important to remember that MOA's are not legally binding to 
any of the non-Federal parties. This one was signed by the Governor of 
New York and the mayor of New York City. If we are to be good stewards 
of Federal tax dollars, why on Earth would we put up those dollars for 
any project before we see the color of the other parties' money. I 
think it would be appropriate to see a vote and a line item in the 
budget for both the State legislature and the city council before we 
rush to appropriate Federal dollars.
  You will also hear the proponents of this project talk about a fire 
which broke out in Penn Station 2 weeks ago. The incident was 
successfully handled without tragedy, but the proponents of the 
redevelopment project correctly point out that there should be more 
egress and ingress for this crowded facility. If there are safety 
problems with Penn Station, and I don't doubt the word of those who say 
there are, then we should address those safety problems.
  But shame on us if we mislead the taxpayers by using safety as a 
convenient, last minute mantle to wrap around an expensive economic 
redevelopment. Particularly one that has not yet been duly authorized 
at the Federal, State, or local levels of government.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to accept this motion to 
instruct House conferees to insist that the Senate recede from its 
position on this matter and that no funding be included for this 
project for this year.
  Before I yield, I would like to go back to the West Virginia Corridor 
H project I mentioned earlier. As I indicated, the House cannot 
instruct the conferees on that project because it is included on a list 
of highway demonstration projects within the report.
  But I must highlight this action on the part of the Senate because it 
permits a rural State to monopolize very limited highway demonstration 
resources to the detriment of large urban States who are buried in 
traffic congestion.
  Of the $352 million in the highway demo account in the Senate bill, 
$140 million is earmarked for Corridor H. And another $75 million for 
this same project was included in the fiscal year 1995 energy-water 
appropriations bill which has already been signed into law.
  That means that the Corridor H project could end up with $215 million 
for the coming fiscal year. And the maximum amount that the West 
Virginia Department of Transportation says it can obligate in fiscal 
year 1995 is $82 million. And, remember that the project already has 
$75 million in the energy-water bill. By my calculations, the need in 
our bill is only $7 million more--not $140 million.
  If you add up the total earmarked in that same Senate account for 6 
of the 7 most populous States--California, Florida, Illinois, New York, 
Ohio, and Texas--that only amounts to $10.2 million.
  A State with 1.7 million people receives $140 million. On the other 
hand, 6 States with more than 100 million citizens--who I might add are 
represented by 175 Members of Congress--get only $10 million. That's 
not fair.
  Frankly, when my colleagues from the State of New York rise to 
discuss the Penn Station project, I would hope that they keep some of 
their powder dry for this downright inequitable allocation of highway 
dollars. When my motion to instruct was posted, one New York office 
asked my staff, ``Why is your boss picking on New York?'' I'm not, but 
someone in the Senate is. I do not think the time is right for 
allocating dollars to the Penn Station project, nor does the committee. 
But I do not think it is right for populous States like New York to 
come up with such a short end of the stick on highway funding 
demonstration projects.
  California, the most populated State in the Union, gets no funding at 
all in the Senate highway demo account. That's not fair either.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to 
instruct the House conferees to insist on the House position with 
respect to the Penn Station project.
  And since we cannot address the report language dealing with the 
Corridor H project, I would urge the Members of this body whose States 
are getting hurt by this inequitable situation in the Senate report to 
speak with the Senators in your respective States. Urge them to contact 
the Senate conferees and express their opposition. Because unless the 
Senate conferees are willing to address this problem, the conferees 
will have a very difficult time coming up with a funding split that is 
fair to those projects included in the House bill.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's motion to 
instruct the conferees. It is an attempt to pit one section of the 
country against the other and is a shortsighted attempt to kill a sound 
project to improve our Nation's transportation infrastructure.
  Now, some Members may be tempted to support this motion as an easy 
way to vote against Federal spending and to vote against New York. I 
urge my colleagues to resist this temptation both because we in New 
York routinely support important projects in other regions and because 
this project will benefit passengers using the national passenger rail 
network, passengers from all parts of the country. In fact, 75 million 
passengers use Penn Station each year. This accounts for nearly 40 
percent of all Amtrak passengers each year.

                              {time}  1300

  Penn Station is a major regional hub serving passengers not only in 
the Northeast corridor but also to and from points south and west. 
There is no doubt that this project is crucial. The current underground 
facility built in 1963, when people thought that rail travel was going 
to die out, is inadequate, decrepit, cramped, and dangerous, pushing 
Amtrak commuters and subway riders into the same space.
  Secretary Pena has pointed out that the station is not only 
esthetically unpleasant, it is inadequate to the travel demands of the 
75 million Americans who use it each year. More importantly, Secretary 
Pena points out that it is unsafe as well. The recent fire a few weeks 
ago points that out as well.
  This funding is actually quite modest when compared with other 
transportation expenditures for projects serving far fewer Americans--
$8.8 billion for Boston's Central Artery, $700 million for Atlanta 
Rail, $1.5 billion for the Los Angeles Subway, and here we are talking 
about $100 million in Federal funds. We have also spent significant 
funds in other Amtrak stations around the country.
  Amtrak spent over $70 million on Washington's Union Station a few 
blocks from here. Philadelphia's 30th Street Station received $13 
million in a USDAG grant, plus $32 million from Amtrak and $20 million 
from the Federal Transit Administration. That is $65 million.
  The claim is made that this is not authorized. Although it is true 
that the project is not specifically earmarked, the House authorization 
bill contains an authorization for Amtrak sufficiently large to contain 
sufficient funds for this project. The bill now moving through the 
Senate contains a more specific authorization.
  New York is already committing funds for this project. The Long 
Island Rail Road has just completed its $200 million portion of the 
project. New York City and New York State have signed an agreement to 
fund their $100 million share. New Jersey Transit will renovate its 
portion as soon as Amtrak begins use of the Farley Building. Amtrak 
will fund its portion of the project with revenues from businesses that 
will be attracted to the renovated Farley Building.
  The administration, Mr. Speaker, strongly supports this project. I 
would like to read into the Record a letter to the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee from Transportation Secretary 
Federico Pena, dated September 19, in which Secretary Pena writes as 
follows:

       Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that the House, when it 
     names conferees for the Department of Transportation and 
     Related Agencies FY 1995 appropriations bill, will consider a 
     motion to instruct the conferees to hold to the House bill 
     provision regarding no funding for the Farley building 
     project in New York City. I want to convey to the Committee, 
     the Administration's strong support for this project and 
     encourage the Committee to oppose this motion to instruct.
       Penn Station in New York City is the single most heavily 
     used intermodal transportation facility in the country 
     serving 75 million people every year. But in its present 
     condition, it is minimally acceptable as a public facility 
     and poses safety risks. The proposed project will provide the 
     needed station capacity and trackage to ensure Amtrak an 
     efficient station to support intercity train operations and 
     give travelers a significantly more comfortable and 
     serviceable station. The station complex will also provide 
     economic benefits to the immediate area, as has Union Station 
     in Washington, D.C.
       The Administration is committed to providing $100 million 
     in Federal funds to support the redevelopment of the 
     Pennsylvania Station including the conversion of the Farley 
     Post Office Building into a intercity railroad passenger 
     station and commercial center. These funds will complement 
     substantial investments from both New York City and New York 
     state, as well as the private sector. Congress has already 
     provided $10 million in FY 1994 and the Senate proposes $40 
     million for FY 1995.
       We ask the House to support the Senate and provide this 
     funding. As the President said last October in New York City, 
     ``For more than half a million commuters every day Penn 
     Station is the gateway to New York City. We can build a 
     beautiful new station worthy of this great future and this 
     great city.''
       An identical letter has been sent to Chairman Carr.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Federico Pena.

  We have already, as was stated in the letter, provided $10 million in 
Federal funds for this project. It is moving along in an orderly and 
efficient manner, making optimum use of local and private funds. We 
should not pull the plug now. We should not abandon our constituents 
who will have to use it in the years to come. This Nation should once 
again have a Penn Station we can be proud of.
  At this point, before I conclude, I would like to simply rebut a 
number of points made in the report language accompanying the June 8, 
1994, House Appropriations Committee markup that raised several 
objections to this project.
  The report said that the project is not justified in tight budgetary 
times, that is too uncertain and too big.
  It is an absolutely necessary project. Last week's fire underscores 
the urgency. I already gave some figures on comparable projects at much 
higher cost--Centeral Artery, $8.8 billion; Atlanta Rail, $700 million; 
and Los Angeles Subway, $1.5 billion.
  It is not too uncertain. About $10 million has already been 
contracted out. The Long Island Rail Road has already completed its 
$200 million portion. The mayor and Governor of New York City and New 
York State have signed an agreement to provide $100 million with the 
Federal money when construction work will begin this fall.
  The second point made was that the project was not requested by 
Amtrak this year. The truth is that this project will not use Amtrak 
capital funds. Therefore, it is not Amtrak's budget request. It will 
use $100 million of State and local funds to leverage a $100 million 
Federal grant, of which $10 million is already received and $40 million 
is in the fiscal year 1995 transportation appropriation bill, in the 
Senate version, along with $115 million made possible by the 
incremental revenue from the redevelopment of the retail component. 
Amtrak is fully supportive of this project.
  The third point made was that the project was not included in the 
internal budget request of FRA or DOT. The project was in the 
President's budget. It is a high priority project for FRA and DOT. Both 
agencies have included funding for Penn Station within the 
administration's budget ceilings.
  The next point made was that the administration's proposed 
authorizing legislation only covers one part of the project. The 
legislation in fact covers the entire project, including renovation of 
the Farley Building, Penn Station, and the service building, and all 
the work necessary to establish and develop a new station and 
supporting facility.

  The point is made that not all parties are expected to sign a binding 
agreement. All parties have already entered into a written agreement. 
Governor Cuomo, Mayor Giuliani, Amtrak, and the FRA have signed a 
written agreement to fund the project. Postmaster General Runyon has 
written a letter of intent.
  Administration officials, it is said, have declined to offer a 
schedule showing when construction will begin, while the fiscal year 
1995 request is for construction. Detailed construction schedules with 
critical path time lines are fully available. Steel remediation and 
fire protection work is scheduled to begin this fall.
  Finally, it is said that it appears the funds requested for fiscal 
year 1995 are only a lure to attract commitments for the other $215 
million needed. But as already mentioned, the city and State have 
signed an agreement to fund their $100 million share. The Long Island 
Rail Road has completed its $200 million portion of the station. New 
Jersey Transit has committed to renovate its portion as Amtrak uses the 
Farley Building. The Farley project has already received and committed 
$10 million. The fiscal year 1995 funds are not needed as a lure; they 
are needed to continue the Federal, State, and local commitment to 
improve the safety, function, and appearance of the busiest intermodal 
station in the Nation.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think this project is underway. The 
bulk of the funds are State and local government funds, and they are 
committed. I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to other Members, I yield 
myself such time as I may consume in order to make just one comment on 
what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] has said.
  First, the letter is really not binding. It is a memorandum of 
understanding to the Post Office that actually owns the building. It 
really is not even part of the letter, so it has not been involved in 
binding either the Post Office or anyone else who might be involved.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Fawell].

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Wolf motion to provide 
instructions to the conferees in regard to not funding the Penn Station 
redevelopment project in New York, a project which the Senate 
appropriators funded at $40 million.
  Mr. Speaker, the Penn Station project is by no means a new project. 
It is one that the House appropriators and the House authorizers have 
previously unanimously opposed. In fact, both the Committee on 
Transportation and Public Works on appropriations and the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce authorization reports have not only not authorized, 
but have gone to the extent of specifically prohibiting Federal funding 
for this project, which would develop the Penn Station in New York City 
into a train station and into a commercial center.
  I cannot overestimate the fact that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell] and his committee--and there is a letter from Mr. Dingell 
which I have here--strongly opposes the Penn Station Project because of 
the lack of an authorization form the House Committee on Energy and 
Commerce. If we do not have the authorization from the authorizing 
committees, then why not send this back and get that authorization? 
That is how the process is supposed to work, and that is why we are so 
deeply in debt in this country. We have an authorizing committee, and 
we just ignore the authorizing committee.
  Earlier in the year, a $10 million appropriation for this project was 
slipped into the supplemental emergency appropriation bill for the 
California earthquake. Now, unbelievably, even though funding was 
prohibited by the House, the startup money was taken from the victims 
of the California earthquake by way of the Senate appropriators. At the 
last minute they pulled the wool over the eyes of the House, having 
assured the house there would be a clean bill, but then loading it up 
with a number of projects from points as far away from the earthquake 
epicenter as, of course, New York City.
  I and 65 other Republicans and Democrats who are concerned about this 
have sponsored a bill to rescind the $10 million appropriation for this 
development project. Now they want $40 million more.
  Well, at least it is not disguised as an emergency this time. 
Ultimately, I understand the estimates for the total cost could be $315 
million. I am not sure, of course, how much of that will be put on the 
backs of the Federal taxpayers.
  Although the $10 million appropriated in the earthquake bill may not 
be rescinded, the House certainly should not stand by and let the 
Senate appropriators attach authorizing legislation to an appropriation 
bill, as well as funding the project in the conference report on this 
bill. The project has never been authorized, I repeat, through a House 
or Senate committee, and funding it has been specifically prohibited.
  I thus think it is only natural and right that we should sand up and 
simply say that with the dire financial straits that Amtrak faces, we 
should not allow this, at least until such time as the authorizing 
committees and the appropriation committees here have approved it.
  I support the actions of the House Transportation Subcommittee 
chairman and ranking member, Mr. Carr and Mr. Wolf, who provided not 
only no funding for the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project but 
specifically provided that no Federal funds be used on the project. I 
urge Members to vote for the motion to instruct conferees to insist on 
the House position in this matter.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, although New York is the largest city in the 
United States, its principal train station--Penn Station--is second-
rate at best.
  Penn Station is Amtrak's busiest, serving nearly 40 percent of all 
Amtrak passengers nationwide. Millions of Americans traveling the 
length of the east coast--from Florida to Maine--go through Penn 
Station each year. It is one of the linchpins of our Nation's 
transportation network.
  Yet Penn Station is falling apart. In fact, its condition is 
absolutely deplorable. It is ugly, it is dingy, and it is dangerous. 
Just last week there was a serious fire in the station, which delayed 
Amtrak travelers and local commuters and injured 12 people.
  This year the President's budget included funds for the renovation of 
Penn Station. This request was made because the administration 
understands the urgency of rebuilding Penn Station.
  Unfortunately, the House did not include any funding for the project. 
As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I understand that these 
are tight times, and I applaud the effort that the members of the 
Transportation Subcommittee made to cut waste and invest in our 
Nation's critical transportation needs.
  However, Mr. Speaker, the redevelopment of Penn Station is one of our 
Nation's critical transportation needs.
  Anyone who questions the merits of the project should take the 
Metroliner from Union Station here in Washington up to Penn Station. 
Union Station--rebuilt at taxpayer expense--is a national model of 
urban renewal. Penn Station is a poster child for redevelopment. New 
Yorkers, and all Americans, deserve better.
  The renovation of Penn Station will increase train travel and make 
Amtrak less dependent on Federal subsidies. On the other hand, failure 
to assist in this effort will leave Amtrak's busiest station in serious 
disrepair. Significant State and local funding for the renovation will 
likely disappear without this Federal investment.
  New York is not a Third World nation, and it should not have a Third 
World train station. In fact, New York is the greatest city in the 
greatest Nation on Earth. Its monuments define our civic aspirations. 
Penn Station was once the greatest of these structures--not simply a 
gateway to and from New York--but a reminder of why we made the journey 
in the first place. I urge my colleagues to support this project.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and join my 
colleagues, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] and the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], in opposing this motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct.
  A week ago Penn Station barely averted yet another potential 
disaster. On Sunday, September 11, at 9:42 a.m., a fire broke out in 
the station. If this fire occurred at rush hour, when 250,000 people 
are usually in the building, who knows how many casualties would have 
occurred?
  Fortunately, it was Sunday and the station was not crowded. 
Thankfully, only 12 people were injured.
  Penn Station is America's busiest train station, but it is old, 
crowded, rundown, and dangerous. It operates at over capacity. It does 
not have enough exits or staircases to handle a rush hour disaster. It 
does not have enough room, ticket counters, stairs, and seating to 
handle the 500,000 people who come through every business day. It was 
built long ago for a different time.
  This year, 75 million people--nearly 40 percent of Amtrak's 
passengers--will use Penn Station. It is the single most heavily used 
transportation hub in the United States, and it is falling apart.
  Like Union Station in Washington, 30th Street Station in Philadelphia 
and South Station in Boston a Federal investment in the renovation of 
Penn Station is a sure bet to improve the station and the neighborhood 
surrounding the station. All of these stations got Federal funds for 
their projects--$70 million for Union Station, $65 million for 30th 
Street Station, South Station in Boston received millions as well.
  Anyone who has been to the train stations in Boston, Philadelphia or 
Washington cannot help but be impressed by what the station renovations 
have meant for each city.
  Perhaps that is what disturbs me the most about this motion. There 
are times when the Federal Government spends money on a project and it 
does absolutely no good. But there are other times when Federal funds 
are guaranteed to work. That is clearly the case for Penn Station. We 
know it will work because we have seen it work in Boston, Philadelphia, 
Washington, Wilmington, Providence, New London, Stamford, and on and 
on. That is why the administration is so supportive of this project--
requesting it in their budget and drafting a letter to Chairman Obey in 
support of funding.
  Last June, when the House passed the transportation appropriations 
bill, the committee had some legitimate concerns about Penn Station.
  But the principal concerns have been met.
  The committee wanted local government support and a commitment of 
local funding. They got it. On August 19, Governor Cuomo and Mayor 
Giuliani signed an agreement with Amtrak and the Federal Railroad 
Administration to provide $100 million in State and city funds for the 
Penn Station renovation.
  Another $115 million in renovation funds will come from bonds which 
have no impact whatsoever on Federal outlays. Inexplicably, after all 
this work, the Wolf motion singles out the most important train station 
in America and says no to the Federal share of this desperately needed 
renovation.
  I find it difficult to believe that the most objectionable item in 
the Senate bill--the one item where we need to instruct conferees--is 
Penn Station. If that is indeed the case, we should just accept the 
Senate bill as it is written.
  It is a shame that a project that we all know is worthwhile--that 
Congress has already funded in Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, and 
other cities as well--is being singled out here.
  One final point: This $40 million is not going to deficit reduction. 
We all know it will go to some other program, is a guarantee.
  So this motion saves the taxpayer no money. All it does is prolong a 
headache for 75 million rail passengers. It sounds like a horrible deal 
to me.
  If we are not committed to maintaining our infrastructure--whether 
it's highways, ports, mass transit, airports, or rail--we will have 
deep economic troubles in the future.
  I hope Members will vote ``no'' on this arbitrary motion to punish 
everyone who rides a train into New York City.

                              {time}  1320

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Nadler] has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf] has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Carr] has 20 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Let me say I am very distressed about this. This is not something 
that is frivolous or something in which we ought to engage in 
semantics. This is something that is very, very important to New York 
and, frankly, I do not think that we ought to take an attitude that I 
see in some quarters here as a dumping on New York as something that we 
ought to be very proud of.
  The fact of the matter is, the redevelopment of Penn Station in New 
York will increase safety in the station, will increase capacity and 
provide jobs.
  The project is certainly necessary: The fire last week, the fact that 
the project is included in the President's budget, and it is something 
that we desperately need.
  I have voted in my 6 years here to help people all over the country, 
to help projects all over the country. What we are saying in New York 
now is that we need the help. Somehow or other, all these, as far as I 
am concerned, silly arguments for knocking out this project is 
something that I really think is totally inappropriate.
  New York needs the help. Penn Station is something that everybody 
knows about, not only in New York but across the country. It 
desperately needs the help.
  We help people all over the country. Now New York needs some help. I 
support my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], and we 
ought to continue to do the kinds of things that are necessary to help 
Penn Station.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to join some of my colleagues 
in support today of the Senate position which would provide $40 million 
toward the Federal share of the proposed renovation of Penn Station. I 
want to do so on the basis of the fact that this is a facility that is 
much used and much needed. It is a facility that provides 
transportation for people all across the Northeast.
  People come into New York from all over the country. As a matter of 
fact, 75 million people come through Penn Station from all over the 
Nation every year.
  This is not just a facility for New Yorkers. It is for people all 
over the country. New York has already committed a substantial amount 
of money for this renovation, more than $100 million committed by the 
State. So this is a case where I think we are in danger of being penny-
wise and pound-foolish.
  We need this renovation. It is good for the Northeast. It is good for 
people all across the country. We really ought to provide this kind of 
funding for those reasons.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Nadler] has expired.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, to close in opposition, I simply want to 
reiterate a couple clear points.
  One, this is a necessary project; 40 percent of all the Amtrak 
passengers in this country, 75 million people a year use Penn Station. 
It is decrepit. It is unsafe. The letter from Secretary Pena says that.
  Second, the administration supports the project.
  Third, for roughly $100 million, we are getting $200 million 
leveraged from the Long Island Railroad, an agency of the State of New 
York, another $100 million already committed from the State and city of 
New York.
  It is not an outsized project. I read a list of projects with far 
larger funding before.
  The project is ready to go. It is an essential project, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the motion to instruct.
  Mr. WOLFE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
want to make a closing comment.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me make just a couple comments in 
summary. One, and I acknowledge some of my colleagues from New York 
have made some interesting arguments and having used the station, I 
understand. But let me make some on other side.
  One, the project is not authorized. Two, when this bill came up in 
the House, no one from New York raised the issue. Third, the memorandum 
of agreement is not binding. Fourth, the Postal Service which owns the 
building is not a part to this MOA.
  The last two points are, as Amtrak pays for its share, it can only 
come from one of two sources: One, a ticket increase, so by doing this 
we raise ticket prices for every one. And last, the American taxpayer 
around the country pays.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, Members might ask, why is the gentleman from 
West Virginia rising to speak on the Penn Station situation. Actually, 
while it is my understanding that it is not part of this motion to 
instruct, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], did make some 
statements concerning corridor H, which is a vital project not only to 
my State but to many other States.
  I simply want, for the record, to show that corridor H is an 
authorized project and has been for a long period of time. Corridor H 
is part of that segment of the Appalachian Regional Commission sections 
of highways comprising 13 States, of which two-thirds is complete; 
corridor H being one of the most difficult sections to complete because 
of the terrain, has always fallen in line behind the others. It is time 
now to move this one forward.
    
    
  Corridor H, the proposed corridor H would be a major lifesaver 
literally. It is estimated that in one major section, the fatality rate 
would be cut by one-half. For those who think this is strictly a West 
Virginia project, and I know the gentleman from Virginia is opposed to 
corridor H, the 12- to 20-mile segment that would be in Virginia, for 
those who think it is simply a West Virginia project, let me ask them 
to look at a map and they will quickly disabuse themselves of that 
notion.
  Corridor H is a major east-west corridor of which, I might add, this 
Congress has already contributed to 35 miles roughly being completed or 
about to be complete, roughly one-quarter of the distance.
  So I think that while this debate today is on something else, I do 
want the record to reflect that. I suspect that the gentleman from 
Virginia and I will be joining this issue in the future in other areas. 
I happen to think there are ways that corridor H can be accommodated to 
some of the gentleman's concerns, at least as regards Virginia.
  That is for another day. But I would like the record to reflect that.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let 
me just respond to the gentleman. I have great respect for the 
gentleman. His district is across from ours and he is accurate. 
Corridor H is a dagger at the heart of my congressional district to 
which every one there is opposed.
  Second, I have and I will submit, I was not going to submit them but 
since the gentleman came here, I will submit into the record so Members 
can read a number of letters that I have received, this is just a 
sample, from West Virginians who are opposed to the project.
  Third, I think the gentleman raises a valid issue with regard to the 
safety issue, and I think that much can be done to improve and 
straighten and widen out. For instance, on route 55 in my area, I think 
we could turn it into a scenic parkway, straighten out, have some truck 
lanes, have some barriers and really turn it into a scenic road without 
destroying all of the homes.
  But in closing, since the gentleman was not here, I want to cover a 
couple of the points. Of the $352 million of the highway demo account 
in the Senate bill, $140 million is earmarked for corridor H.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Speaker, nobody believes that any State, even California, ought 
to get $140 million out of $352. I would tell the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Carr], who I have the greatest respect for, he has done 
an outstanding job on this committee of putting together performance 
standards. Michigan should not get $140 million, New York should not 
get $140 million for one project, and it is just wrong.
  It is frankly, fundamentally flawed. It is wrong. I know Members in 
their heart know that it is not appropriate, and it should not stand.
  Second, this means that corridor H could end up with $215 million for 
the fiscal year, $215 million, and at the max, we checked with the 
Federal Highway Administration, the maximum amount they can obligate, I 
would tell the gentleman, is really $82 million.
  Some people think West Virginia wants to bank this money for the 
future. When I see all the good projects in the district of the 
gentleman from New York, the gentlemen from California, Michigan, New 
York, places like that that could use these projects to put people back 
to work, create jobs, but also to eliminate gridlock. How do you 
explain giving West Virginia in one bill $165 million out of a total 
allocation of $215 million, when the rest of the country does not even 
get that much? It is just not appropriate.
  Last, the gentleman knows, and it is probably a tribute to his hard 
work and effort, in the energy and water bill there was $75 million for 
the same project. Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. A sense of fairness, 
if we put this to a referendum, to the American people, and they voted 
on it, they would say no.
  I am not against West Virginia. Let me just say to the gentleman, I 
have great respect for the gentleman. I have great respect for him and 
the Representatives from West Virginia, and I hope I do not hurt her 
back in West Virginia, but my senior legislative assistant is from West 
Virginia. Some of the best people I know are from West Virginia. 
However, it is inappropriate.
  If you add up the earmark for the same Senate amendment, for the six 
or seven most popular States, California, and I see the gentleman from 
California, Florida, the fastest growing State, Illinois, New York, I 
see the New York delegation is sitting there, Ohio, Texas, that only 
amounts to $10.2 million. Did I say billion? No. It is $10.2 million.
  We know West Virginia is going to get $215 million. $215 million, and 
all these States, California, Florida, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Texas, 
that have 175 Members of Congress, are going to get $10.2 million?
  Mr. Speaker, I would say that I do not know how this is going to come 
out when we go to conference, but we know in our fibers, in our sense 
of integrity of what we know is right and wrong, we know this is wrong. 
We know what is happening.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman refers to the letters. I think 
it would be worth consulting our highway department, which has held 
extensive public hearings. Seventy-two percent of the 6,700 letters 
received by the highway department are in favor, almost every 
community.
  I would just invite the gentleman, if he wants to work in Virginia to 
build that type of parkway, fine. Please come to West Virginia and see 
the West Virginia Turnpike and Corridor L, we which we are now 
extending to a four-lane status, because we did build such a parkway as 
the gentleman suggested. What we found out is, this increased fatality 
rates and in some cases made it even more hazardous. We will revisit 
this, I know, much more in the future.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman. People have urged me 
and said, ``Please do not bring this issue up.'' They say there will be 
retribution. One, there has been no retribution; two, I expect no 
retribution; but, three, if there is retribution, I will be down on 
this floor every day giving 1-minutes, and believe me, when I get 
involved in an issue, I never, ever let it go.
  Let me just say that $215 million for West Virginia versus $10.2 for 
these States like California, Florida, Illinois, New York, Ohio, and 
Texas, I just do not think that is fair. I hope when we go to 
conference that we can, in the spirit of reconciliation, in the spirit 
of bipartisanship, really resolve this issue, because it is not an 
issue of partisanship.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I truly like the gentleman, I think he knows 
it, and I respect him.
  Mr. Speaker, I include these documents for the Record:

                               Potomac Valley Audubon Society,

                            Shepherdstown, WV, September 13, 1994.
     Hon. Frank Wolf,
     House of Representatives, Cannon Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Congressman Wolf: I write on behalf of the 450 members 
     of the Potomac Valley Audubon Society living in Jefferson, 
     Berkeley, and Morgan counties in West Virginia to oppose 
     inclusion of $140 million for the Corridor H four-land 
     highway project in the Fiscal Year 1995 Transportation 
     Appropriations bill currently awaiting conference committee 
     action.
       As you know, the House voted not to include any funds for 
     the Corridor H project in its version of the bill. We ask you 
     do your utmost to have the House conferees hold firm to this 
     decision.
       As taxpayers and small business owners, we oppose federal 
     spending on this porkbarrel project at this time because of 
     Corridor H's extreme cost--currently estimated to be at least 
     $1 billion, or about $10 million per mile--and limited 
     economic benefits.
       As drivers, we oppose this project because it would drain 
     state and federal funds away from desperately needed 
     improvements to other, more used and but less safe roads.
       As hunters, anglers, and naturalists who appreciate the 
     beauty of the Virginia/West Virginia, highlands, we oppose 
     this project because of the harm it would do to our trout 
     streams, forest, farmlands, and wilderness.
       Finally, as environmentalists concerned with good 
     government, we question whether it is wise to appropriate 
     taxpayer dollars for this project before the required 
     environmental studies have been completed and the public is 
     allowed to fully comment on the project. Decisions to spend 
     millions of public dollars should follow the public's 
     expressed desire--not precede it.
    
    
       Thank you for your efforts to oppose this wasteful 
     spending.
           Regards,
                                                   David Malakoff,
                                                   Vice President.
                                  ____

                                                       Ohio Valley


                                      Environmental Coalition,

                                   Kenova, WV, September 14, 1994.
     Congressman Frank Wolfe,
     House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Wolfe: The Ohio Valley Environmental 
     Coalition, a grassroots environment justice organization, 
     opposes Corridor-H. please remove funding for this project 
     from the appropriations bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Janet Fletcher,
                                         OVEC project coordinator.
                                  ____

                                               Northern Shenandoah


                                       Valley Audubon Society,

                                    Boyce, VA, September 14, 1994.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Re: Corridor H
       Dear Congressman Wolf: On behalf of the 500 members of the 
     Northern Shenandoah Valley Audubon Society, I urge you to 
     stand firm on your opposition to Corridor H and to vote to 
     cut off any funding for it.
       Thank you for your courageous position against this 
     unnecessary porkbarrel project.
           Yours truly,
                                                John Watson-Jones,
                                                        President.
                                  ____

                                                     West Virginia


                                        Environmental Council,

                               Charleston, WV, September 13, 1994.
     Hon. Frank Wolf,
     House of Representatives, Cannon Building, Washington, DC.
     Re: Corridor H
       Dear Representative Wolf: The West Virginia Environmental 
     Council, a coalition of state organizations, opposes the 
     construction of Corridor H. At our annual meeting this past 
     weekend, we adopted a resolution to that effect, which is 
     attached.
       We had previously called for a two-lane upgrade 
     alternative; we understood that Virginia's Commonwealth 
     Transportation Board was studying such a proposal. However, 
     we found the so-called ``Improved Roadway Alternative,'' 
     presented by the WVDOT, completely unacceptable. It's time to 
     throw out Corridor H and start from scratch, using the 
     transportation planning and citizen involvement called for in 
     ISTEA.
       Thank you for your efforts to stop this monstrosity.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Kim Baker,
                                                        President.
                                                     West Virginia


                                        Environmental Council,

                                                   Charleston, WV.

                        Resolution on Corridor H

       It is resolved by the West Virginia Environmental Council:
       1. We oppose construction of Corridor H.
       2. We urge the Department of Transportation to implement 
     statewide transportation planning mandated by recent federal 
     legislation.
       3. We call for improvement of existing roads, with due 
     consideration for the integrity of towns, structures, and the 
     environment.
       Adopted by the Council at its annual meeting, September 11, 
     1994
       In the past year, constituent organizations such as the 
     Sierra Club have taken a strong no-build position; and the 
     Division of Highways presented an ``Improved Roadway 
     Alternative'' that was not a two-lane upgrade, but for most 
     of its length a new highway corridor. The Council's 1993 
     resolution was based on the following preamble:
       WHEREAS members of the Environmental Council have expressed 
     objections to proposals for a new four-lane highway through 
     the Potomac Highlands for the past twenty-five years; and
       WHEREAS the original justification for such a highway, ``to 
     create traffic'' where existing traffic was thought 
     insufficient for economic development, is even less 
     defensible now than it was in 1965; and
       WHEREAS the West Virginia University Regional Research 
     Institute's studies have found that construction of new 
     highways in our rural areas distant from metropolitan centers 
     does not foster economic development, and other experts, 
     including the first director of the Appalachian Regional 
     Commission, have concluded after 25 years of ARC investment 
     that such highways are not economically justifiable; and
       WHEREAS the expense of the project, more than a billion 
     dollars, would be disproportionate to the expected traffic, 
     and would siphon away the funds available to improve existing 
     roads; and
       WHEREAS federal and state agencies and private groups have 
     called for more careful study of alternatives to a new 
     corridor; and
       WHEREAS a four-lane truck route through the mountains would 
     be incompatible with the steady growth of environmentally-
     sensitive tourism the region has experienced over the past 
     fifteen years; and
       WHEREAS the current proposal would have a devastating 
     impact on some of the most precious wild lands in Eastern 
     North America, including rivers, wetlands, the Monogahela 
     National Forest, and endangered species habitat.
                                  ____



                                         Cardinal Control Co.,

                               Clarksburg, WV, September 15, 1994.
     Congressman Frank Wolf,
     Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Wolf, Many West Virginians question 
     Corridor `H'. Our State has many roads and bridges in need of 
     repair. We believe money could be better spent maintaining 
     our existing infrastructure.
       Corridor `H' as a quick way to the wilderness in not 
     logical. Wilderness by definition does not have a four lane 
     road through it or to it.
       For those concerned about existing roads in that area, 
     changes such as passing lanes and re-routing some grades 
     might be possible. But clearly there is no need for Corridor 
     `H'.
       This issue, as many do, has become personalized. No one is 
     questioning Senator Byrd's judgment. The issue is only 
     whether the outcome justifies the expense and destruction of 
     wilderness. Corridor `H' is not good for West Virginia.
                                                       Cris Green.
                                  ____

                                                September 15, 1994
     Congressman Frank Wolf,
     Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Wolf: I write to you to express my total 
     opposition to the construction of Corridor II not only in 
     West Virginia but in Virginia itself.
       Please do all that you can to stop the excessive 
     appropriation of 140 million dollars for Corridor H in the 
     current House Appropriations bill now before the committee 
     that you sit on!
           Sincerely,
                                               Charles H. Merritt.
                                  ____



                               West Virginia Rivers Coalition,

                                               September 14, 1994.
     Congressman Frank Wolf,
     Cannon House Office Building, Washington DC.
       Dear Congressman Wolf: I understand that you are willing to 
     help West Virginia's citizens in their attempt to review the 
     actual purpose and need of the proposed four-lane road, 
     Corridor H. I also gather that you plan to be active in 
     conversing/educating the House Appropriations Committee in 
     regards to the issues surrounding the proposed road, and that 
     you plan to take an active role in trying to halt yet more 
     funding for this project.
       As representative for the West Virginia Rivers Coalition 
     (WVRC), I would like to make clear our groups purpose and 
     goals so you can better understand from where, our concerns 
     come. The WVRC was formed in 1989 in an effort to establish a 
     strong river advocacy group in West Virginia, a state which 
     has historically suffered tremendous river degradation. Now 
     the second largest state river conservation group in the 
     nation, WVRC has an individual membership of approximately 
     1700, and an additional 37 national, regional (4 of them from 
     Virginia) and state affiliate groups who work with us in our 
     mission to protect and restore West Virginia's exceptional 
     stream for the benefit of present and future generations.
       Having reviewed the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact 
     Statement for the proposed four-lane our group has the 
     following concerns:
       That Corridor H would cross over 20 streams in both 
     Virginia and West Virginia, and that the related construction 
     would affect trout streams like Duck Run and Cedar Creek in 
     Virginia; Lost River, Trout Run, Patterson Creek and Shaver's 
     Fork in West Virginia.
       That the U.S. Forest Service is currently studying 12 
     streams within the Monogahela National Forest for possible 
     designation by the National Wild & Scenic Rivers System; this 
     study includes the Shaver's Fork River which would be crossed 
     at least once, and followed by Corridor H for approximately 4 
     miles. The West Virginia Rivers Coalitions strongly supports 
     the scenic designation of this West Virginia stream and 
     suggests that this proposed road is incompatible to this 
     possible National River designation.
       That sedimentation caused by timbering and road 
     construction is now one of the main water quality issues many 
     agencies are having to address.
       That the U.S. Department of Interior expressed concern 
     regarding the adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources, 
     specifically the secondary and cumulative impacts to water 
     quality in the Potomac watershed, and in the issue of 
     channelization or relocation of the Lost River, Shaver's 
     Fork, Trout Run and Duck Run.
       While the West Virginia Department of Highways has already 
     acquired the amount of money required for them to continue 
     work in FY 95, and this additional appropriation of 140 
     million would be above and beyond their needs; we support 
     your efforts to divert this money and direct it into efforts 
     that would enhance water quality versus degrading it.
       Congressman Wolf, I appreciate your concern and efforts in 
     this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Pamela Merritt,
                                    Conservation Program Director.
                                  ____



                           Sierra Club, West Virginia Chapter,

                               Morgantown, WV, September 11, 1994.
     Hon. Frank Wolf,
     Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Wolf: This letter is to inform you that 
     the West Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club is opposed to 
     the construction of Corridor-H.
       Our opposition is based on the negative environmental 
     impacts such a roadway would have on the many remote and 
     sensitive areas it would pass through or near, as well as the 
     negative impacts on the quality of life of the communities 
     and landowners in the area.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Elizabeth Little.
                                  ____

                                          Sierra Club, Appalachian


                              Regional Conservation Committee,

                                                 Charles Town, WV.
     Representative Frank Wolf,
     Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Wolf: On behalf of the Sierra Club's 
     Appalachian Regional Conservation Committee, of which your 
     state is a member, I am asking you to oppose all and any 
     funding for the Corridor H highway project. As I understand, 
     the House of Representatives did not appropriate any funds 
     for this project whereas the Senate Appropriations Committee 
     did.
       Early this year the Conservation Committee voted 
     unanimously to support a ``No Build'' position proposed by 
     Committee delegates from Virginia. Since then both the 
     Virginia and West Virginia Chapters have voted to support a 
     ``No Build'' position.
       I am sure you are well aware of all the fiscal, 
     environmental and sociological pitfall on the Corridor H 
     highway.
       Thank you for opposing this needless and poorly planned 
     highway.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Paul Wilson.
                                  ____

                                               September 14, 1994.
     Congressman Frank Wolf,
     Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Wolf: I thoroughly approve of your 
     position against the construction of Corridor H through parts 
     of W. Va. and Virginia, and I hope you will maintain your 
     position so that this pork barrel project will not be funded.
       Many West Virginians feel that our wilderness area in that 
     part of the state is far more valuable than a faster way to 
     get to Strassburg, Virginia or to Inter-State I-81.
       We appreciate your stance.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Anne R. Harvey.
                                  ____

                                                    Hendricks, WV,
                                               September 14, 1994.
     Representative Frank Wolf,
     House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Wolf: Aggressive promotion by 
     supporters of Corridor H (from Elkins, WV to Stanton, VA) may 
     have obscured the fact that many of this area's residents 
     strongly oppose its construction. I urge you on their behalf 
     to support the House version of the current transportation 
     appropriations bill which contains no appropriation for this 
     project.
           Very sincerely,
                                                   Jon P. Crowell.
                                  ____

                                                       John Warner


                                      Otter Creek Photography,

                                Hendricks, WV, September 14, 1994.
     Representative Frank Wolf,
     House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC..
       Dear Representative Wolf: As a businessperson in Tucker 
     County, WV, I want you to know that I am strongly opposed to 
     the construction of Corridor H from Elkins, WV to Stanton, VA 
     and I urge you to insist on the House version of the current 
     transportation appropriations bill with No appropriation for 
     Corridor H.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John Warner.
                                  ____


           Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriations for Corridor H, WV

       Corridor H, a planned four-lane superhighway which will 
     traverse the central part of West Virginia, will be a big 
     winner in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations process. This 
     will work to the disadvantage of other states, primarily 
     those like California which have extreme problems with urban 
     congestion.
       In fact, if you add up the total earmarked in the Senate 
     highway demonstration account for six of the seven most 
     populous states--California, Florida, Illinois, New York, 
     Ohio, and Texas--that amount only totals $10.2 million. 
     Compared to $140 million for one project in the rural state 
     of West Virginia.
       For FY '95, this one West Virginia project has been 
     targeted in the Senate version of the transportation 
     appropriations bill to receive $140 million, nearly half of 
     the money available in the highway demonstration project 
     account.
       In addition, Corridor H has already received an 
     appropriation of $75 million in the energy-water bill.
       The maximum amount which can be obligated for this project 
     in FY 1995 is $82 million.
       If the project receives the full $215 million earmarked in 
     the two appropriations bills noted above, that means that 
     West Virginia will have $133 million left over that cannot 
     even be obligated this coming year.
       And that leftover amount does not include the $63.5 million 
     which the West Virginia DOT has on hand from previous years 
     to carry over. (In previous appropriations bills, at least 
     $100 million has already been directed to this project.)
       In addition, there is significant opposition to this 
     project from the citizens of West Virginia. A citizen 
     coalition, ``Corridor H Alternatives,'' is actively fighting 
     this project and has testified before congressional 
     committees asking that funding be stopped.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, for the purpose of making just a few observations on the 
debate we have just held, and to speak in behalf of the entire 
subcommittee.
  Mr. Speaker, the entire subcommittee has, in the matter of Corridor 
H, in the past been quite supportive. This gentleman has been a 
supporter of Corridor H. It is authorized. In the past I have defended 
it on this very floor.
  We are trying in our bill to manage dollars well on behalf of the 
taxpayers of this country. While some projects may be controversial, 
and I would expect that some people would disagree mightily with some 
of the decisions about certain projects we have made, we have at least 
always endeavored to make sure that we never appropriated more money 
for a project than it could use in the next fiscal year. Our bills only 
last one year.
  We have always regarded it as unfair if a project is appropriated 
more money than can be effectively used while there are other projects 
that are worthwhile around the country which could effectively utilize 
those dollars, put people to work, improve their economies, augment 
safety, and generally make sure that all the taxpayers of this country 
know that we are using and managing their cash flows and their dollars, 
their hard-earned tax dollars, with the respect for the hard work that 
earned them.
  Mr. Speaker, we know we face a very, very tough conference. I would 
expect that we would be, in the spirit of compromise, particularly on 
projects like Corridor H, which we did not this year include in our 
bill, willing to work with the Senate to make sure that a just and 
reasonable compromise is achieved.
  Mr. Speaker, I merely wanted to add that note for the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Wise]. We appreciate his advice and counsel. I do 
not think anything that was said here today detracts at all from 
Corridor H or the wonderful State of West Virginia, as we try to manage 
the taxpayers' dollars with the utmost care.
  Mr. Speaker, as to the matter that was raised in the motion itself 
regarding the instruction on the Farley Building in New York City, I 
merely want to note that there has been some argument here over whether 
the project is in fact authorized or not. Indeed, if one were to take a 
very liberal interpretation of money going to the Northeast corridor, 
one could find the Farley Building and Penn Station in the Northeast 
corridor, and I suppose that would be sufficient authorization to spend 
money on the Farley Building or Penn Station.

  Our committee, however, works very closely with the authorization 
committees that authorize the legislation for which we appropriate, and 
we have done so with the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
on highways, in the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries on the 
Coast Guard, and we do so as well with the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce as they authorize Amtrak.
  Mr. Speaker, I have had a communication from the chairman of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the dean of my Michigan delegation, 
Chairman John Dingell. He is of the opinion that the Farley Building 
and Penn Station are not authorized, and therefore, not subject to 
appropriation from our Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  I would tell Members that I am one of those travelers that go through 
Penn Station at least a couple of times every year, and I could 
heartily support renovation of Penn Station, as a traveler and a 
customer of Amtrak. I am not here to argue the merits of whether Penn 
Station needs to be renovated. I think it does. there is no doubt that 
Penn Station is one of the great stations in America. It is. We need at 
some point to address the renovation of Penn Station.
  The simple fact in our subcommittee, however, was it was not 
authorized. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, our committee did not approve 
funding for it in our transportation bill recently passed by the House.

                              {time}  1340

  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the motion made by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Congressman Wolf's 
motion to instruct. Mr. Wolf would instruct the conferees to accede to 
the House version of the Transportation appropriations bill, which 
provides no funding for the renovation of a post office building across 
the street from Penn Station in New York City.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a direct correlation between pork-barrel 
spending like this and the American public's cynicism toward Congress. 
The $40 million in the Senate Transportation appropriations bill was 
not authorized, or even requested by Amtrak or the Department of 
Transportation. Our time-tested process of requiring appropriations 
projects to compete against each other for funding was completely 
circumvented. This $40 million was simply inserted in the bill while 
out of the public eye. It does not surprise me that Congress' 
popularity continues to plummet.
  Years of time and effort have been spent attempting to cut spending 
on boondoggles like Steamtown U.S.A., originally funded through an 
earmark in an appropriations bill. Projects like this and the 
unauthorized earmarks in last week's HUD appropriations bill are just 
as egregious. Please don't condone this practice and support Mr. Wolf's 
motion to instruct.
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to 
instruct conferees to resist inclusion of any funding of the Farley 
Post Office redevelopment project to replace New York's Penn Station 
with a new Amtrak terminal across the street. This is not because of 
any hostility on my part to Amtrak--quite the contrary. Amtrak is 
hurting, and hurting badly now. It is short of funds and short of 
equipment. Even its President, Mr. Downs, testified before the Energy 
and Commerce Committee that, however meritorious the Farley project may 
be, it cannot be justified if it takes funds away from Amtrak's 
operating and capital resources.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the Senate version of this 
bill does. It takes $40 million directly from Amtrak for use in this 
project. That is bad policy. But worse, such action directly 
contravenes existing authorization law.
  In 1992, when Congress enacted the last Amtrak authorization, we 
authorized a feasibility study of the Farley post office conversion 
project. But the law specifically required that the Farley project be 
evaluated on the premise that no Amtrak appropriations were to be used 
in converting the post office building. Yet that is exactly what the 
Senate is proposing to do in their version of this appropriations bill.
  The $40 million that the Senate bill takes away from Amtrak is only 
the tip of the iceberg. According to a memorandum of agreement entered 
into last month, the Federal Railroad Administration would have to put 
up $100 million, and Amtrak would have to contribute $115 million. In 
my view, this does not remotely comply with the directive in the 
current law to avoid raiding Amtrak funds to renovate the Farley 
Building. And just to put these amounts in perspective, the total 
increase sought by the administration this year for all of Amtrak's 
non-Northeast Corridor service was only about $90 million. Where are 
our priorities?
  Let me add one final note. We have a new Amtrak authorization ready 
to go to the House floor. On a bipartisan basis, the Energy and 
Commerce Committee redirected the $90 million that the administration 
requested for the Farley project back into Amtrak's overall national 
operating and capital accounts, where the need is the greatest. At the 
same time, I am quite willing to acknowledge, we authorized feasibility 
studies for upgrading two stations in California--Burbank and Ontario. 
But we played by the rules. In both cases, the proposals have to be 
predicated on receiving no Federal Amtrak appropriations. I suggest 
that if we are willing to honor this kind of limitation in these times 
of fiscal stringency, it is not asking very much for the other body to 
do the same--especially since the New York project is already addressed 
by existing law.

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to 
instruct conferees. The conversion of the Farley Post Office in New 
York City to a new Amtrak intercity rail terminal may well be a good 
idea in the long run. But that is not the issue today. We are facing a 
situation where Amtrak is literally running its equipment into the 
ground because of a shortage of capital funds. As the General 
Accounting Office testified at our authorization hearing in the Energy 
and Commerce Committee, Amtrak cannot afford to maintain its current 
route system at current funding levels.
  Against that background, channeling sizable sums--$40 million in this 
bill, with over $100 million contemplated for completion of the Farley 
project--away from Amtrak's operating and capital needs simply cannot 
be justified. Congress has already spoken to this issue in the 1992 
Amtrak authorization--Public Law 102-533. Amtrak was told to evaluate 
the feasibility of the Farley project, but with the explicit directive 
that no Amtrak appropriations were to be used. Now we have an 
appropriations bill from the Senate that takes $40 million from Amtrak 
now, with more to come later. In fact, the memorandum of agreement 
signed this summer allocates a contribution of $100 million to the 
Federal Railroad Administration for this single building.
  To put that amount in perspective, that is more than the 
administration proposed, and that our committee-reported Amtrak bill 
authorizes, for increases for the whole Amtrak system's capital and 
operating funds in fiscal year 1995. This is a complete inversion of 
Amtrak's priorities, and it is contrary to the guidance already given 
on this subject in existing law.
  One especially curious aspect of this project is that the August 16 
memorandum of agreement was signed by the FRA Administrator, the 
Governor of New York, and by Amtrak's president. But guess who is 
missing? The owner of the building--the U.S. Postal Service. And we all 
know that the Postal Service is now a Government corporation with a 
statutory duty to earn as much revenue as possible. Yet it is not even 
a party to the agreement.
  It gets worse: The agreement assumes a $115 million direct 
contribution from Amtrak, based in part on ``investments made by the 
United States Postal Service * * * to induce Amtrak to become a 
tenant.'' In other words, the landlord is going to pay rent to the 
tenant. And the landlord is not even party to the agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, at some point in the future, when all the relevant 
parties have put together a viable transaction, this may well be a 
worthwhile project. But it cannot and should not be funded with 
Amtrak's already scarce resources.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  The motion to instruct was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Carr of Michigan, Durbin, Sabo, Price of 
North Carolina, Coleman, Foglietta, Obey, Wolf, DeLay, Regula, and 
McDade.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________