[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 138 (Wednesday, September 28, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4556, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on rules, I 
call up House Resolution 553 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 553

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points 
     of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all 
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. At this time I yield 
the customary 30 minutes for the purpose of debate only to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. pending that I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GORDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 553 provides for the 
consideration of the conference report on the Department of 
Transportation and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1995.
  The rule waives all points of order against and conference report and 
against its consideration.
  I would like to commend Chairman Bob Carr and ranking Republican 
Frank Wolf for bringing this comprehensive conference report to the 
floor today.
  The long hours, hard work and dedication have produced a good bill 
which maintains our current transportation infrastructure and provides 
funding for innovative technologies which will make our Nation's 
transportation system safer, more efficient and economical.
  This year, Chairman Carr and the conferees had to achieve these goals 
with a much tighter budget. The conference report is $10 million below 
the 602(b) allocation.
  I want to commend Chairman Carr for his many achievements as chairman 
of the subcommittee. Under his leadership, the Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee developed detailed investment criteria 
which every member submitting a funding request must complete. I hope 
the criteria continues to be utilized in the years to come.
  I want to thank Chairman Carr for his friendship and advice. I also 
want to thank Frank Wolf and the subcommittee staff for all of their 
hard work and for a job well done.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the resolution.

                              {time}  1020

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the 1995 transportation appropriations bill 
has evolved through a process of give-and-take that saw some 
rearranging of priorities and, I think, resulted in a better and fairer 
product for the American people. The conference report that came to the 
Rules Committee last evening represents the result of months of hard 
work and negotiating on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the 
Capitol. The rule before us waives all points of order--a blanket 
waiver--blank check, if you will--that affords this conference report 
complete protection from violations of the rules of the House. While I 
recognize that bills of this magnitude are often so complex that it is 
difficult to determine if every ``I'' is dotted and every ``T'' is 
crossed--I believe that chairmen who bring these bills forward should 
know which House rules their bills have violated and which waivers they 
need. I have been given by staff a partial list of the rules violations 
in this bill--including germaneness, scope and legislating in an 
appropriations bill--and for that I am grateful. I think that providing 
such specific information allays Members' concerns about hidden 
surprises that might be tucked into these massive bills--and it 
certainly comes closer to living within the rules we have set for 
ourselves in this House. I hope that these specific waiver requests, as 
opposed to blanket waivers, will become more the norm than the 
exception. In addition, Members should note that the blanket waiver in 
this rule sets aside the requirement that conference reports be 
available for 3 days prior to floor consideration--another provision of 
House rules designed to protect Members against unpleasant surprises. 
As the Washington Post noted this week in an editorial, such waivers 
can cause real problems. They said, ``Members are sometimes forced to 
vote on bills they haven't read and into which provisions have been 
inserted that might not be able to stand the light of day; the crime 
bill was a recent example.''

  Now, I am not implying that this bill has such a problem--but 
generally I think it is best if we make sure we give Members enough 
time to be sure on their on their own. Still, I do recognize that 
October first--end of the fiscal year-- is fast approaching, and so I 
will not object to this waiver on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, as a Floridian, I must admit that I am still concerned 
about the formulas used for allocating Federal highway dollars--
formulas that continue to leave high-growth States with the short end 
of the money. As a strong advocate for the Coast Guard, I note that, 
while this bill offers an increase for Coast Guard funding from last 
year's bill, it still falls short of their request. I know my 
colleagues don't need to be reminded of the important duties the Coast 
Guard traditionally performs--duties that have been forced to a lower 
priority in recent months as the Coast Guard has become a major player 
in the Clinton administrations war like Haitian policy. To conclude Mr. 
Speaker, I wish offering blanket waivers were not such a reflex action 
in the Rules Committee, and I hope that during next year's 
appropriations process we will see fewer such requests.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to say briefly that this is 
the last appropriations bill that the chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr], will be presenting to the U.S. 
House of Representatives. Not only is he a friend and colleague, but 
Bob Carr is someone who I think has really brought new accountability 
to this appropriations process, a system that hopefully will live on 
and make a more logical, economical approach to these very needed 
appropriations.
  Mr. Speaker, he is a good friend, he is a good Member, he is a good 
man. We are all going to miss him, and all my best to Bob, his wife 
Kate, and family.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. In the 
interests of bipartisan comity and of moving this bill in a forward 
way, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] about the chairman, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I yield 
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 553, 
I call up the conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 553, the conference report is considered as having been 
read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Monday, September 26, 1994, at page H9719.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr].


                             general leave

  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 4556.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. CARR of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, today we present to the House a 
conference report on the fiscal year 1995 transportation appropriations 
bill. As Members know, the start of the 1995 fiscal year is just 3 
short days away. The conference agreement provides funding to continue 
the important operations of transportation programs and related 
activities, including air traffic control, Coast Guard operations, and 
other critical transportation safety activities.
  The transportation appropriations bill always requires a delicate 
balancing act, and this year was no different. We have had to deal with 
competing demands for extremely limited funds. This conference 
agreement is the result of long and arduous negotiations, and 
represents the very best efforts of the conference committee to achieve 
a fair and a balanced bill.

                              {time}  1030

  Before getting into the specifics of the conference agreement, I want 
to offer my sincere gratitude and appreciation to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the ranking minority member of the subcommittee 
and my partner in this bill. He has worked hard to obtain a good bill. 
I have appreciated his diligent efforts during the long months of 
hearings and throughout the House consideration of the bill and right 
up until the conference and the final filing of the conference report. 
I also want to acknowledge the work of the other members of the 
subcommittee: The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Price], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], and 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for their contributions, as well 
as the contributions of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], our 
full committee chair, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], 
the ranking full committee minority member. They have all made 
invaluable contributions to the legislation that we are about to 
consider today.
  Finally, I want to make sure that everyone understands as we here in 
the body know so well that the product could not be with us today 
without the able help of our professional and associate staff members. 
They have worked very hard and very long. While many of the members are 
able to take a lot of the credit for the work product, it is truly 
theirs.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement provides $13.7 billion in new 
discretionary budget authority and assumes $12 billion in new outlays. 
The conference report is just below our 602(b) allocation in budget 
authority and virtually identical to our allocation in outlays. The 
total budget resources provided, including new budget authority, 
limitations on obligations, and exempt obligations, is $14.3 billion in 
budget authority and $37.1 billion in outlays.
  Mr. Speaker, we have faced several difficult and challenging issues 
in crafting this compromise agreement. In recent days the issue of how 
to allocate fairly funding for designated highway projects presented a 
dilemma. While the total amount allocated for such projects in both the 
House and Senate bills is roughly similar, each body chose a markedly 
dissimilar approach to determining the distribution of those funds in 
individual projects. The conferees ultimately agreed to provide a total 
of $352 million, evenly divided between the two Houses, with each House 
allocating its portion.
  As anyone who reads the newspapers knows, it has not been easy 
reaching an accommodation with very divergent and passionately held 
views of the conferees. I believe it is a testament to the judgment and 
objectivity of all the conferees that this potentially divisive matter 
was resolved in an equitable manner.
  Another important issue was that of the Penn Station redevelopment 
project in New York City. Members on both sides of the Capitol have 
equally strong feelings both for and against this project. It 
ultimately may require the Federal Government to invest about one-third 
of the total project cost of $315 million. The compromise embodied in 
this bill provides $40 million toward the Federal matching share but 
specifies that none of these funds may be obligated unless authorized. 
I believe this is a good compromise between the divergent views on this 
item and I believe it is a compromise that the Members of the House 
should accept.
  The proposed demonstration of two-person high occupancy vehicles on 
I-66 inside the beltway in Virginia also generated a tremendous amount 
of controversy. I am pleased to report that the difference of opinion 
on this matter has also been resolved. The conference agreement allows 
the demonstration to go forward if approved in advance by certain 
members of the Transportation Planning Board.
  Mr. Speaker, I would now like to turn to some of the specific 
provisions in the conference agreement:
  The agreement provides $3.7 billion for the activities of the coast 
Guard, a slight increase over the 1994 level. Included within this 
amount is $2.6 billion for operations and $363 million for acquisitions 
and construction. We have restored a $25 million appropriation for the 
Boat Safety Program which the administration had not included in its 
budget request.
  The agreement provides $8.4 billion in new budget authority and 
obligation limitations for the activities of the Federal Aviation 
Administration. Within this total we have increased appropriations for 
critical FAA operations to $4.6 billion or $15 million more than the 
1994 level. This appropriation includes $17.6 million to continue the 
pay demonstration project. The bill limits obligations for FAA's 
airport improvement program to $1.45 billion--a slightly lower level of 
effort than in the current fiscal year.
  The agreement provides a total of $19.9 billion in new budget 
authority and obligation limitations for the Federal Highway 
Administration. Reflecting the severe budget constraints facing the 
conferees, the bill includes $17.2 billion for the primary Federal-aid 
Highways Construction Program. Unfortunately this amount is $430 
million below the 1994 level, but under these difficult budget 
circumstances this was the best that we could do.
  The agreement provides $2.5 billion for transit formula grants, 
including $710 million for operating subsidies. With regard to 
operating subsidies, we reached a compromise funding level 
approximately midway between the current level and the administration's 
request.
  The agreement allocates $1.7 billion for transit discretionary grants 
including: $725 million for rail modernization; $353 million for buses 
and bus facilities; and $647 million for section 3 new fixed guideway 
systems.
  We also faced a perplexing challenge in fairly allocating funds for 
buses and bus facilities, as well as section 3 new starts. Again, 
because the House and Senate took such different approaches to 
allocating these funds, the conferees agreed to approximately a 50:50 
split of the funds, with each body then allocating its share according 
to its priorities. A priority for the conferees was to reserve a 
portion of bus and bus facility funds for allocation by the Secretary 
of Transportation. The conference agreement reserves $30 million for 
this purpose.
  To provide financial support to Amtrak, the bill appropriates $772 
million for Amtrak operations and capital grants, $200 million for 
Northeast corridor improvements, and $40 million for Penn Station 
redevelopment, as I mentioned previously. This is 10 percent more than 
was provided for Amtrak this fiscal year.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement also includes several other 
important provisions.
  The bill appropriates $37 million for pipeline safety programs, 
nearly doubling current appropriations to address numerous safety 
issues arising from the March 1994 gas pipeline explosion in New Jersey 
and last year's oil pipeline spill in Reston, VA.
  The bill appropriates $30 million to continue the Interstate Commerce 
Commission [ICC], a reduction of 33 percent below the 1994 level. Mr. 
Speaker, this funding level comports with the enactment into law of 
H.R. 2178, which abolishes motor carrier tariff filing requirements, 
and thereby eliminates about one-third of the ICC's regulatory 
responsibilities. These collective actions will result in a streamlined 
ICC and permanent budget savings, but will avoid disruption of ongoing 
ICC regulatory responsibilities in the rail area.
  The bill also includes significant administrative savings in the 
operation of the Department of Transportation, including reductions in 
the Department's working capital fund, procurement obligations, 
staffing and employee award. Additional details of the bill are 
addressed in the conference report and joint explanatory statement of 
the managers.
  Mr. Speaker, I merely want to say when the day is done that this 
conference agreement was difficult to achieve. The agreement is 
carefully crafted and it protects the significant provisions and major 
interests in the House-passed bill. It is within our budgetary 
allocations. We had the cooperation of all the Members. I ask the 
membership of this body to approve the conference report on 
transportation appropriations.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I now support this bill. As the members know, I had 
serious reservations earlier about the distribution by the conference 
of certain highway funds, but these concerns about the basic fairness 
of the bill have been resolved and I support Chairman Carr's efforts. I 
ask my colleagues to support H.R. 4556 as well.
  But I would also like to retrace the chronology of the controversy 
over this bill and make the point that the inequity of one State 
dominating the highway demonstration account must never happen again. 
And, this was not a partisan issue. There was concern on both sides of 
the aisle.
  As the Members know, one project in the State of West Virginia, 
corridor H, was allotted $140 million in the Senate version of this 
bill. That was nearly one-half of the $352 million in the entire 
highway demonstration account. When we completed the House-Senate 
conference on this bill, corridor H still had $90 million, nearly one-
third of the total resources available. This was unfair and worked to 
the detriment of many States with severe congestion problems, 
especially large States like California, Florida, and Illinois. And 
even more disturbing was the fact that this same project already had 
$75 million in the fiscal year 1995 energy-water bill, and all the 
State of West Virginia can obligate this coming year is $82 million. I 
felt that it was extremely unfair for one State to bank large sums of 
money, while other States aren't even able to meet pressing highway 
needs.
  Without going into detail, these concerns were addressed in my 
September 26 statement which I will include in the Record.
  I am pleased, however, that, through the efforts Chairman Carr and 
full committee Chairman Obey, this matter of fairness was resolved with 
the Senate conferees, and in this conference report, corridor H is only 
allotted $35 million. I believe this has resulted in a more equitable 
distribution of these funds among the States.
  Today, I want to discuss the 1995 transportation appropriations bill 
that went to conference late last week. The highway demonstration 
projects account of the bill is particularly troubling.
  Before the bill went to conference, Chairmen Carr and Lautenberg 
agreed to share the highway funding between the Chambers at a 52-48 
percent split. The House's share of the $352 million was about $170 
million which Chairman Carr and the subcommittee handled fairly. The 
Senate's share, on the other hand, about $183 million, was highway 
robbery.
  Of the $183 million in the Senate, one State, West Virginia, got $95 
million, or 53 percent, for two projects--$90 million for the 
controversial corridor H and another $5 million for route 52 
improvements. To put it in terms that everyone can easily understand, 
West Virginia got more Senate money for highway demonstration projects 
than the rest of the country combined. A total of 1.8 million people 
got $95 million while the rest of the country, about 254 million, 
splits $88 million. And let me just say for the record, the people of 
West Virginia are good people, but this is unfair, unjust, and 
inequitable. This is just plain wrong. It is exactly why the American 
people are fed up with Congress. When the power of a few is stronger 
than the power of the people, something has got to change.
  What makes matters worse is, in addition to the $90 million in this 
bill, corridor H got $75 million in the energy and water spending bill 
earlier this year bringing the total for this road project to $165 
million. I checked with the Federal Highway Administration and they 
told me West Virginia can only obligate $82 million for this project in 
fiscal year 1995. West Virginia has gotten twice as much money as it 
can spend, while the rest of the country doesn't have enough. This 
money could be going to needed projects to help congested areas like 
Los Angeles and Miami, where moms and dads are sitting in traffic while 
they could be at home spending time with their kids. California and 
Florida both got $0 in Senate funding.
  To put it in perspective, if you add up the Senate funding for the 20 
most populated States, they get a total of $39 million, California gets 
nothing, Florida gets nothing, Illinois gets nothing, New York gets 
only $1 million and on and on and on. Each of you has been provided 
with a chart which clearly shows these figures. And West Virginia gets 
$95 million? How can this be?
  In 1988, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia announced that he was 
going to trade in his post of Senate majority leader to take the 
chairmanship of the Senate Appropriations Committee with the intent of 
bringing to West Virginia $1 billion by 1995. At a 1990 dedication 
ceremony in Beckley, WV, Senator Byrd commented on his pledge, ``I'm 
trying to get the money as fast as the State can keep up with it.'' By 
1990, 4 years ahead of schedule, Senator Byrd's total of $1 billion for 
West Virginia had been reached.
  Just look at the last five transportation spending bills.
  In the fiscal year 1991 transportation appropriations bill, Senator 
Byrd hijacked $137 million, or 30 percent, of the $459 million for 
highway projects for West Virginia.
  In the fiscal year 1992 transportation appropriations bill, Senator 
Byrd took $162 million, almost 30 percent, of the $589 million 
available. Of the $162 million, $148 million was for the corridor G 
project which received an additional $58 million in the energy and 
water appropriations bill. The next closest State in highway receipts 
was Michigan with $46 million. West Virginia got $162 million. Twenty-
three States, including California and Texas, got nothing.
  In fiscal year 1993 West Virginia got $104 million for two projects, 
corridor L at $24 million, which was second only to corridor G at $80 
million. These two projects in West Virginia amounted to one-third of 
all highway demonstration project dollars.
  In fiscal year 1994 corridor L got another $54 million which amounted 
to 43 percent of the country's highway dollars.
  And in fiscal year 1995, you know the story, West Virginia, for two 
projects, got 52 percent of the Senate's money or 27 percent of the 
Nation's highway money for demonstration projects.
  Another part of the story is, the figures I have just gone over are 
basically transportation bills only. They do not take into account the 
relocations of parts of several governmental agencies like the FBI, the 
Bureau of Public Debt, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Coast Guard, 
and so on.
  The message here is, and the Washington Post, Orlando Sentinel, 
Houston Chronicle, and other haves recognized it, there is a pattern of 
greed and abuse of power here and until it changes, the attitude toward 
this body with the American people will not improve.
  Again, I want to thank both Chairman Carr and Chairman Obey for being 
responsive to my concerns and for their diligent work in persuading the 
Senate to accept a more reasonable approach to the distribution of 
these highway funds. Also, since this is the last vote my friend from 
Michigan, Mr. Carr, will seek on a transportation bill in this body, I 
want to tell him how much I have valued working with him as the ranking 
member of the subcommittee. No one has worked harder than Bob Carr to 
bring accountability and fairness to the allocation of scare 
transportation resources, and my hat is off to him. I want to wish him 
well and to let him know that I will miss him.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the chairman of the 
full Committee on Appropriations.

                              {time}  1040

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to do a number of things on this bill 
this morning. The first thing I want to do is to express my regret that 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] will be leaving this House. He 
is seeking what I would not call higher office, but he is seeking a 
different office, located on the other side of the Capitol. I question 
his judgment, but I nonetheless hope that he succeeds in that endeavor 
because he has brought a tremendous amount of skill, a tremendous 
amount of integrity, and energy to the process, and I very much 
appreciate that. I think he has performed a tremendous service to the 
public in the years which he has served in this House and we are going 
to miss him.
  I would also like to comment briefly on the conference report itself. 
As I think most Members know, there were a number of items which 
appeared to be causing controversy after the conferees had concluded 
their original meetings. One was a misunderstanding involving the HOV 
lane situation in Virginia. I am very pleased that that was worked out 
in a more favorable fashion.
  Second, the question of the Corridor H funding in West Virginia was a 
significant problem, and it was a problem which was brought up to me by 
a good many Members on both sides of the aisle.
  I want to congratulate very much the flexibility shown by Senator 
Byrd, by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wolf, and by Chairman Carr. I 
think that without that flexibility on all sides this problem could not 
have been worked out, and as a result that project which was at $140 
million originally in the Senate bill and $90 million in the conference 
report is now at $35 million, which is I think a substantially more 
understandable result, and I think Members in this House can feel quite 
good about it.
  The third issue was whether or not the highway projects would be 48 
to 52 split in favor of the Senate or if they would split down the 
middle 50-50. That was adjusted so that the House and Senate shared 
equitably in the highway projects in this bill.
  I would simply say that this bill is a valuable bill for the country. 
It will provide a good many jobs because of the construction projects 
that are included in this bill. It will provide for economic 
modernization, and it will increase economic efficiency. We do have two 
bridges a day that fall down in this country. It would be kind of nice 
if we made more progress in fixing them and this bill helps to 
modernize our transportation infrastructure which is crucial to 
providing good economic opportunity across the country.
  I also want to commend House Members on both sides of the aisle for 
declining generally to try to load up these bills with extraneous 
matters. As we know, in the other body there is a good deal of loading 
up which appears to be going on on several of the appropriations bills. 
I very much appreciate the fact that on both sides of the aisle Members 
in this House have not engaged in delay, have not engaged in 
obstruction, have not engaged in overt partisanship with respect to any 
of the appropriations bills which have come before the House this year.
  There is only one appropriations conference report remaining to be 
passed through this House after this bill is passed, and we expect to 
finish our work on that tomorrow and then the House's work will be done 
on appropriation matters.
  So, I very much again appreciate the assistance of the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Carr], the assistance of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf], and I would urge the House to support the bill as it stands 
before us.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I merely 
want to applaud the efforts of our full committee chairman, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. David Obey. Our bill did have a major, I 
would say almost a catastrophic impasse at the close of the conference. 
I have been on this committee now for some 12 years, and I have never 
seen a full committee chairman who was more responsive to a 
subcommittee chairman in terms of a request for help and intercession 
and bringing tremendous legislative skill to solving a most difficult 
problem.
  While I am at it, I want to commend the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations in the other body, who exercised heroic restraint and 
one might say political self-sacrifice to see to it that there was an 
equitable resolution of the controversy at hand and that is what makes 
this bill and its contents so supportable by all Members of the House 
and the Senate.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the gentleman yielding 
the time to me. I would like to take this moment to pay a special 
tribute to my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], who 
has been very aggressive on this bill in a variety of ways, but one way 
in particular that took an immense amount of courage from him was his 
support of my effort, really a bipartisan effort to eliminate the 
Interstate Commerce Commission.
  We ended up passing that bill through this House eliminating that 
commission. It then went over to the Senate, where the elimination was 
blocked.
  However, contained in this bill today is a 30 percent reduction in 
the total operating costs of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
  The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], who is on the floor with us 
today, and I actually went to the Senate and made this argument. The 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] and I together have been working 
on this issue for a number of years and the gentleman from Colorado 
deserves an enormous amount of credit for his work in terms of trying 
to eliminate this bureaucracy.
  I would say to the House today that the 30 percent cut is not 
something that I view as a lasting victory, but only, I guess the only 
way I would put it is a grudgingly accepted compromise on the part of 
the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] and myself. But we will be 
back next year. We have already begun negotiations with Members of the 
majority party and we have entered into discussions about the way to 
orderly transfer these activities into the Department of 
Transportation.
  I have a gentleman's handshake from most of the Members on the 
Democrat side of the aisle in regard to the orderly transfer of this 
operation. That is clearly what we must do, an orderly transformation 
and a twentieth century upgrade in terms of the entire responsibilities 
of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
  But a 30 percent cut at this point is something that we are prepared 
to accept and give praise to Members on both sides of the aisle with 
the knowledge that we must move forward and truly reinvent this agency.
  But I must just take a special second to thank again the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], who under a lot of personal pressure said, 
``I think what Mr. Hefley and Mr. Kasich are proposing in reasonable.'' 
Without his support, frankly, I do not think we would have come this 
far. We have a ways to go, but we have taken a first step with more 
steps to come.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Price], a very valuable member of this 
committee and a member who has been of tremendous personal assistance 
to me in carrying out my obligations as chairman during this most 
difficult year.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I enthusiastically rise in 
support of H.R. 4556, the bill making appropriations for the Department 
of Transportation for the fiscal year 1995.
  The first thing I want to do is to thank our chairman, the gentleman 
from Michigan, Mr. Bob Carr. He has done a superb job of chairing this 
subcommittee during tough budgetary times. He has been fair. He has 
insisted that the projects in this bill be justified, that they be 
subjected to close scrutiny and justification in terms of specific 
economic criteria.

                              {time}  1050

  He has made certain that this bill represents a sound investment in 
our economic future.
  I wish the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] the best of luck and 
hope to continue to work with him as he joins the other body.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] has made a substantial 
contribution to this bill, raising questions that needed to be raised. 
He and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] have continued the 
Transportation Subcommittee's impressive bipartisan tradition. I 
commend them both for that. I also commend our staff for their 
dedication and professionalism in crafting this conference report.
  This conference report is the result of hard work and cooperation and 
conciliation by many, many people. We have here a sound bill, a 
balanced bill. It honors our commitment to fiscal responsibility. It 
also honors our commitment to spending what we do spend wisely, making 
sound investments. This bill will enable us to move ahead in developing 
all transportation modes in a balanced way, in promoting safety and 
protecting the environment, and in undergirding economic growth and job 
creation.
  This is a bill of vital importance to my State of North Carolina and 
to this entire Nation, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to support it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula], a member of the committee.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report to the 
transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995.
  As with all of the appropriation bills this year, it has been 
difficult to meet the needs as articulated by Members and at the same 
time work within the confines of the funds available.
  The Nation's transportation infrastructure, as was pointed out by the 
previous speaker, is vital for continued economic development. If we do 
not have a strong system of highways, rail, and airports, our Nation 
could never be as competitive in the world marketplace as we should be. 
We have adopted NAFTA; the GATT agreement is pending for action here, 
and all of these things point to a very competitive world out there in 
the years to come as we become more and more a part of the global 
marketplace.
  Transportation serves as the arteries of the Nation and determines 
our ability to move goods. The ability to be efficient as a producing 
country depends a great deal on the quality of our transportation 
infrastructure.
  I think this is one of the most important appropriation bills that we 
have had, because it is basic to everything else. We talk about welfare 
problems. We talk about crime problems. Many of those flow from the 
absence of jobs, and jobs oftentimes flow from the absence of 
transportation facilities in any given marketplace. So it is an 
important bill.

  I want to commend our leader and chairman, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Carr]. He did something unique, and that is establish 
standards that we could measure these projects by. This was a first, 
and it resulted in the projects being funded that were cost-effective, 
that demonstrably were supported by the State, were part of the State's 
program. I think this set a benchmark that ought to be followed in many 
other things we do, and that is determine or have some measuring stick 
as we determine where we will put the limited resources available to 
us. He certainly, as a chairman, was very open to the minority. It was 
a collegial committee, and our ranking minority member, the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], worked closely with the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Carr], and it is a pleasure to be a member of this 
subcommittee.
  We will miss the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] as chairman next 
year, but I think the standards and the criteria that he established 
will be a legacy that will be very important to our subcommittee as we 
again have to try to meet the needs with the limited resources 
available to us. It is because of that, I believe, his contributions 
will go much beyond his tenure as a chairman in the House.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], chairman of the Committee on the Budget and 
a member of the subcommittee, a member who has been of invaluable 
service to the creation of this product.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, to the chairman and to the ranking member, let 
me say thank you for bringing a good bill to the House, and to the 
chairman, let me say just a personal thank you for his great efforts 
not only on this bill, but it has been a real pleasure to be his 
colleague these many years in the House. We expect to be across the 
table with the gentleman from Michigan in the future, not on the same 
side of the table, and I look forward to continuing to work with him in 
the years ahead not only on transportation questions but on a whole 
host of issues where he brings great energy and great wisdom to public 
policy in this country.
  So I simply wanted to thank him for his great service in the House 
and wish him well and look forward to continuing to work with him.
  Let me just simply say about this bill it is a good bill, and let me 
also say that one of the features of this bill is that there are some 
highway projects that we fund very specifically, and those come under 
attacks at times, but there are also times when you do things that are 
very unique and very important because of that. One that I am 
particularly familiar with, we are redoing a frontage road on a freeway 
in advance of freeway reconstruction. What it means is that a small 
community can do that access road in a fashion that has been planned by 
the community, that accommodates the residential area, at the same time 
preserves commercial-industrial area in that suburban community that 
has very small commercial-industrial tax base.

  If they simply waited until reconstruction to reconstruct the 
existing access road, it would have meant substantial disruption for 
the neighborhoods, and it probably would have also meant the loss of 
all the businesses along that stretch of the freeway, because simply 
doing the access road in an unplanned fashion, reconstructing the 
existing one would have eliminated all of the access that people had to 
those businesses.
  So the money that is being spent is being spent in a unique fashion 
and also in a way to preserve a neighborhood and preserve commercial-
industrial base in a very important suburban community.
  So I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his good work and wish him 
well.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I commend our ranking member, the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], for the outstanding leadership he has provided.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4556, the fiscal 
year transportation appropriations bill. I commend the chairman and the 
ranking member of the subcommittee for their hard work on this 
legislation and for the fine job they have done with limited Federal 
resources. In particular I would like to commend them for their 
inventive thinking on section 314A.
  The Federal Government is no longer able to fund transportation 
projects as it has done in the past. I have had a number of 
conversations on this subject with Federal Highway Administration 
officials over the last 2 years. In response to the current fiscal 
situation, it is my understanding that the Federal Highway 
Administration has been encouraging States to work with them to develop 
innovative financing plans for Federal highway projects. As a member of 
the Public Works and Transportation Committee, I would also note that 
this action is consistent with the 1991 Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA].
  At this point, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my 
colleague from Virginia.
  Is it the intent of the Appropriations Committee that section 314A is 
to cover applications for innovative financing proposals on high 
priority corridors as designated in the ISTEA?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. That is correct.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Is it also your understanding that should the State 
of Arkansas have an innovative financing loan proposal approved by the 
Federal Highway Administration for Highway 71, that all the funding 
under that proposal is to be used on the northern portion of Highway 71 
from Alma to Fayetteville?
  Mr. WOLF. if the gentleman will yield further, that is correct. That 
is the understanding, and the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would like to concur with the 
statements of my colleague, the ranking member of the subcommittee. It 
is the intention of the committee that section 314A be used as a loan 
program for innovative financing proposals on high priority corridors. 
And further that funds approved for the State of Arkansas under this 
section may be used on the Alma to Fayetteville portion of Highway 71.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I would just want to thank the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Carr] for the leadership he has provided and for 
this reassurance that he has given us today. I also thank the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4556, Transportation 
appropriations for fiscal year 1995. I commend the Appropriations 
Committee for directing its attention to a transportation nightmare in 
my congressional district in New Jersey.
  The interchange of Route 17/Route 4 in Paramus, NJ, is a major east/
west to north/south link in northern New Jersey and its improvement is 
vital for commuters and commerce. The interchange lies at the heart of 
Bergen County's commercial hub, and it is a critical crossroad for all 
of northern New Jersey.
  The existing interchange was built in 1932 and designed to 
accommodate an estimated volume of 12,000 vehicles per day. Clearly, 
with the present estimated daily volume of 250,000 vehicles, the 
interchange is no longer suitable, and in dire need of improvement. Not 
only is the interchange one of the busiest intersections in New Jersey, 
it is also one of the most dangerous--averaging one motor vehicle 
accident per day.
  This interchange has got to go. We must improve safety and traffic 
flow.
  In addition, a new interchange will help control northern New 
Jersey's critical air pollution problem and alleviate the heavy traffic 
flow which has spilled over to residential streets as commuters attempt 
to avoid the crowded interchange. On any given day, we have gridlock in 
Bergen County as the direct result of the 4-17 nightmare.
  At an estimated total cost of $90 million, completion of the Route 
17/Route 4 interchange project is heavily dependent upon Federal 
funding.
  Full funding for the interchange should not be a problem since both 
Route 17 and Route 4 have been designated by the U.S. Department of 
Transportation as components of the urbanized area portion of the NHS, 
at the request of the N.J. Department of Transportation, the North 
Jersey Transportation Coordination Council, and other local planning 
organizations, and in accordance with applicable provisions outlined in 
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 [ISTEA]. 
As a currently authorized project, the Route 17/Route 4 interchange has 
already demonstrated its clear merit to the U.S. Congress.
  Our local officials have worked closely with the New Jersey 
Department of Transportation to formulate the approved interchange 
design. New Jersey stands ready to provide the required matching 
funding necessary to bring the Route 17/Route 4 interchange problem to 
a successful resolution.
  This appropriation bill contains $15 million for this project--far 
more than the insufficient $3 million that was considered early this 
year. But the residents of northern New Jersey need more. So I will be 
back next year fighting for the rest of our fair share.
  In the meantime, I urge the House to uphold the Federal Government's 
commitment to construction and completion of the Route 17/Route 4 
interchange by approving this appropriation bill today.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  (Mr. WISE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WISE. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want, as the chairman of the full committee, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], did, to acknowledge the efforts of 
negotiating this bill that certainly the subcommittee chairman made, 
the ranking member [Mr. Wolf], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], 
and the senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd].
  What this bill did, I think, was to focus a lot of attention, and 
perhaps we are going to visit it again, but I think we have to look 
when there are certain allegations made about the inequity of one State 
in an account. That account was for $352 million, it was one part of a 
$36.5 billion bill, of which $13.7 billion alone went to highways.
  So the proportion begins to decline greatly. I think that this 
discussion has also been helpful, though, because it has caused us to 
recognize the different needs that each of us has. West Virginia lives 
and breathes on highways. If you turn to other parts of the bill, for 
instance, we have some airports getting earmarked, which I support, 
some airports getting earmarks which exceeded what West Virginia gets 
for airport money. We have no mass transit systems. We can spend a lot 
of time looking for mass transit systems in West Virginia. But they are 
called coal shuttle cars. We have no mass transit system in West 
Virginia. The issue of controversy on Corridor H, coming out of the 
conference, $90 million is what it costs 1 mile of Metro.
  So I just ask that everyone look. I think this does reflect a fair 
agreement. I am encouraged for this reason. First of all, the $35 
million for the most troublesome section of Corridor H can be built; I 
think that is very important. The second thing is this committee, for 
which I appreciate the efforts of all involved, recognizes the 
importance of Corridor H as a truly national highway. I understand it 
has funding needs and is ready to go, in the words of the committee, I 
believe will proceed expeditiously on it.
  I think for all of us it is a plus. I hope what this debate has done 
is begin to cause each of us to recognize the needs which each one of 
us has and that you may not get what you want in one account but you 
are probably getting help and assistance in another account. In the 
context of this broad bill, I believe this committee has addressed 
many, many needs.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. DeLay], I want to yield myself such time as I might consume. I 
would want to say one thing with regard to corridor H. I do not want to 
beat a dead dog, and we are not going to do it. I personally have some 
fundamental problems on the corridor H issue. While there has been talk 
of bringing corridor H into my congressional district, into Virginia, 
the people in the western part of my district do not want the road and 
obviously, as the gentleman from West Virginia follows the wishes, as 
he should and does, very ably, of his district, that is something that 
I want to kind of lay out so there is no misunderstanding.
  Second, on this whole issue of corridor H, I think it a decision that 
the good people of West Virginia are going to have to decide on. There 
is some controversy developing in West Virginia itself; not in the 
Nation but in West Virginia itself. I think the people of West Virginia 
are going to have to sort this issue out. I do not really want to talk 
a lot about it, but if the gentleman wants----
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. WISE. I thank the gentleman.
  Just real quickly, as far as the gentleman's district goes, and I am 
happy to work with him and others, and he and I have discussed this, I 
agree with the gentleman. If the people of his district do not want a 
4-lane highway, we have discussed this. And they do not have one. That 
is the way the ARC system works, and it is the way the highway building 
thing works.
  I pledge to him I am not going to try to ram anything through. If he 
wants to stop at the line, that is fine.
  Second, in West Virginia, yes, there is opposition, as there is 
opposition on every road project everywhere. I invite the gentleman to 
take a trip with me along the proposed route, and I think we are going 
to find solid support, particularly as we keep moving westward.
  Mr. WOLF. Well, I appreciate that, and I may want to do that 
sometime. I consider the gentleman a friend. I just think we are going 
to end the issue with that. I just did not want this to seem as if 
there were no concerns on corridor H. I did want to make that point 
clear with regard to the State line and with regard to the local 
feelings.
  Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield, if I may, 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], a distinguished member of the 
committee who has made a great contribution here.
  Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend our ranking member, the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], for the diligent work that he has done in his 
second year as ranking member of this subcommittee. He has proved 
himself an extremely fair, honest and hard-working member of the 
subcommittee, standing up not just for the interests of the committee 
but for the interests of the House as a whole. He has put in many long 
hours crafting this Nation's transportation needs. I commend the 
gentleman.
  I have got to say that Mr. Wolf stood up for the honor of the House 
when, in my opinion, the other body tried to take advantage of the 
House. I cannot get into that right now, but suffice it to say--and I 
put the Members on notice--that the Senate did try to take advantage of 
the House, and it was because of Mr. Wolf's courage and tenacity that 
we were able to bring a little fairness back to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. This is the 
bill that literally keeps America on the move. I would like to commend 
my chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr], in his last year 
and last act as chairman, for his diligent efforts on behalf of this 
Nation's transportation needs. In his short tenure as chairman of the 
subcommittee, he has instituted many crucial and necessary changes to 
the committee and applaud his efforts. And, if his future endeavors are 
successful, he might be able to help make those same necessary and 
crucial changes in the other body. I would also like to pay tribute to 
my ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Wolf]. In now his 
second year as ranking member he has proved himself as an extremely 
fair, honest, and hard working member of the subcommittee standing up 
not just for the interests of the committee but for the interests of 
the House as a whole, putting in many long hours crafting this Nation's 
transportation needs. I commend the gentleman and again, am proud to 
serve on the committee with him.

  Mr. Speaker, this committee has gone to great lengths to address 
transportation programs in a fair and responsible manner. But I would 
say that this is just a good conference report, not a great one. I do 
not think anyone walked away from the conference happy, and I believe 
that this year's conference was a lesson in how the process really 
works. With regard to that effort, I would like to also talk briefly 
about Houston Metro.
  The committee has shown continued support for Houston's regional bus 
plan. Although the conference halved nearly all projects, this was a 
fair and equitable decision since no project received special 
attention. Almost as important as the funding for Houston Metro was the 
language in the report regarding the regional computerized traffic 
signalization system.
  The language states that the funding provided for the regional bus 
plan program is intended to be used for the entirety of the regional 
computerized traffic signal system [RCTSS] project, as described in 
Metro's grant application to the Federal Transit Administration for the 
first annual capital construction program.
  This was necessary because there has been a great deal of confusion 
with regard to Houston's plan and the overall goals and objectives of 
the program. Put simply, there has been a literal ``change-of-heart'' 
regarding what the FTA has already approved for Houston.
  Without this state-of-the-art system, the regional bus plan will be 
just another bus system--which is not at all what will effectively 
serve Houston and is not what I support. Houston's innovative bus 
system using the regional computerized traffic control system, as 
planned, will allow buses to operate like a rail system at a 
significantly lower cost. For the new FTA to be suddenly reassessing 
its past endorsement and support of the regional bus plan and the 
regional traffic control system is simply wrong. This language will 
clarify the committee's intent for the Federal funding of Houston 
Metro.
  This plan, without question, serves as a model for transit programs 
throughout the Nation. They also have the lowest cost-per-new-rider 
index out of all of the projects funded by the Federal Transit 
Administration. I am very proud of the accomplishments Metro has 
enjoyed and I want to commend their efforts.
  Regarding the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Senate added $30.7 
million for the continuation of the ICC, rejecting the House's position 
that called for its elimination. It was not an issue during the 
conference. The Senate position assumes a staffing reduction of one-
third, a streamlining of the Commission and additional ramifications of 
reform legislation that has been recently enacted into law. I want to 
point out that this year, Congress has done more for the deregulation 
of the trucking industry than any other year since 1980, instituting 
many of the reforms that I have been advocating since may days in the 
Texas Legislature.
  Mr. Speaker, there were other issues that the conference committee 
considered such as the 13(c) issue, which is an issue that affects the 
prompt obligation of funds for transit projects. The House position was 
strong language designed to avoid unnecessary delays of transit 
projects by the Department of Labor. The conference decided to accept a 
compromise amendment that does little to help the problem. Hopefully, 
the committee will be able to address this problem in a much more 
responsible manner next year.
  Again, I want to thank my colleagues on the committee for their hard 
work, and the staff's time and effort, and I urge all Members to 
support this conference report.

                              {time}  1110

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley] who has worked so hard on this issue with regard 
to the ICC.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the funding included in 
the conference report for the Interstate Commerce Commission.
  As has already been noted, the conference report before us includes 
$30 million for the Interstate Commerce Commission, and this is a 30-
percent cut below previous funding levels. Contrary to some of the 
accounts, however, the funding level does not reflect the position the 
House took last June when it voted to eliminate the ICC, eliminate, do 
away with, kill off, never see again. We wanted to get rid of the ICC, 
and it was a relatively overwhelming vote in the House of 
Representatives, and I understand compromise, and I understand the 
Senate did not share our sentiments as strongly, but a 70-percent 
funding does not equal zero funding. What this cut does represent is a 
desperate effort by some Members, and particularly those in the other 
body, to save the Interstate Commerce Commission. They think by 
throwing us a bone in this case, in this case tariff filing 
requirements for truckers, they can save the commission that has been 
targeted for elimination by every major taxpayer group in the country. 
Speaking for myself, I am not satisfied with the offering. While I 
support eliminating the tariff filing, it is a reform that I have 
sponsored and worked on for the last 8 years, and the compromise 
continues to fund a commission whose very existence should really be 
the focus to our debate.
  Let us be perfectly clear. The ICC apologists do not support 
eliminating rate filing for motor carriers. They did not support it 
when the House passed the Motor Carrier Act in 1980. They refused to 
consider it last year when we passed the undercharge legislation. Even 
after it became clear this mindless regulation had cost Americans over 
$30 billion in attorneys and back charges, and could do the same in the 
future, these Members dug in their heels and said, ``No.'' Today they 
offer to eliminate the tariff filing, not as a good government reform, 
I think, but as a sacrifice to save the ICC. It may work; it may not 
work. But I want everyone to understand that next year I will be back 
on the House floor fighting to eliminate this unnecessary commission.
  Those that were terribly concerned that we were too precipitous this 
year with our efforts to try to eliminate the commission so drastically 
said it ought to be done in a more reasoned way. Well, this year gives 
us a reasoned way to do this, so work with us, and let us try to get 
this thing done in an appropriate way for next year.
  Mr. Speaker, there is an unbreakable law in Washington which says, 
``If you give somebody a job and a title, they'll find something to 
do.'' That is the position of the ICC today. Fourteen years ago 
Congress took away most of their responsibilities. Since then the ICC 
has been busy filling up time and space, publishing little manuals, 
scraping together some turf. Today we are going to eliminate the single 
largest remaining responsibility of the ICC, and I think that is good, 
but how will the ICC respond? As they have in the past, new 
responsibilities will be discovered.
  In my mind the choice is clear. Either we eliminate the ICC outright 
or we wait and watch as the commission rebuilds its turf and continues 
to waste taxpayers money. That is what it has done for 107 years, and 
that is what we will do again if we give it the opportunity.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation 
and also to pay tribute to the extraordinary effort of the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Carr] and the ranking member, and gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], and all the members of the subcommittee who have 
done a great service to this Nation and, in particular, an 
extraordinary service to the State of Rhode Island. Because of the 
contemplated electrification of the Northeast corridor by Amtrak our 
freight rail system out of Quonset Point and Davisville literally was 
in jeopardy of being strangled, and that would have caused the State 
the inability to develop one of the, we hope, premier ports in the 
Northeast at Quonset Point and Davisville. I brought my concerns to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr]. He listened, and not only did he 
listen, but he also came up to Quonset Point, Davisville, along with 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Coleman]. Their individual observations confirmed what we were saying, 
and through their efforts we were able to get for the first time 
Federal assistance to reconstruct and rebuild our freight rail system 
out of Quonset Point and Davisville to give Rhode Island a chance to 
rebuild its economy. This is an extraordinary effort on behalf of Mr. 
Carr and his colleagues. It would not have happened without him because 
he took a personal interest in it, and this is an example of the kind 
of concern he shows not just for his own constitutents, but for the 
Nation overall, and I know he will be showing that same concern in the 
other body in the next few months. I want to thank him, thank all the 
Members, for what they have done and also thank the staff, particularly 
Rich Efford who unfailingly responded to all our concerns and 
questions.
  So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the State of Rhode Island and my 
constituents I say, ``Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good luck.''
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in somewhat reluctant opposition because it seems 
as though everybody who has talked here is very much in favor of this 
legislation, and I have a lot of respect for our ranking member who has 
done so much, as has the chairman, I think, in trying to take care of 
that situation in West Virginia. But what we have here is, No. 1, a 
waiver of the 3-day rule so that people such as myself and, I think, a 
lot of Members of this Congress have not had the opportunity to 
carefully review this conference report and, thus, to be assured that 
this legislation is as good as a lot of people who have spoken think it 
is. From what little review my staff has been able to make, what we 
have is $350 million going for these ``surface transportation 
projects'' and roughly $44 million going to West Virginia, $46 million 
going to Michigan. That is over 25 percent, and then five other States, 
all of whom were represented, I understand, by conferees who come from 
those States, divvying up another $85 million.

                              {time}  1120

  So 50 percent of all the funds is going to some seven States. By 
contrast, if the $350 million were to be distributed by the statutory 
formula so that all States would share--and certainly all States have 
programs that are very important to those States--then even most of 
those States that are receiving funds under this conference report 
would get more than the amount of money they are getting under the 
circumstances we have here. Certainly, that is not so as far as West 
Virginia and Michigan are concerned. Those two States walk off with 25 
percent of the appropriations. And probably that is not true of the 
other five States that also pick up a disproportionate 25 percent of 
the total $350 million appropriation. But the rest of the States are 
the ones that, at least in this distribution, come out being very much 
shorted. That is not the way to run the Congress, I believe.
  In addition, we have to recognize what we have here. What we are 
doing here, as I understand it, we are using general funds, $350 
million of general funds. That is peanuts, I suppose one might say, in 
$1.5 trillion annual budget account. But, by gosh, when we do this over 
and over and over again, we are talking about billions, and that is 
sort of big money back in Illinois.
  I do not think we have to do this. We can follow the statutory 
formula for the distribution of highway gas tax funds. We can just 
simply pay this money in accordance with that formula and distribute it 
by the formula. That is, at least fair if we insist in passing out this 
added largesse--these special projects, which are over and above the 6-
year 1992-97 $122 billion of transportation appropriations.
  I do not think, therefore, that I can say this is sound legislation. 
It's just more profligate spending--money we have to borrow from our 
children and grandchildren. We're just that much deeper in debt. I am 
not going to ask for a vote. This bill will pass even with or without a 
vote. I am not trying to make a Federal case out of it, but I guess it 
is a Federal case. I just do not think this is the way we ought to be 
operating. When I see things like this, I know the people are better 
off when Congress isn't in session.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my last speaker, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Virginia for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Carr and my friend, the gentleman from 
Virginia, [Mr. Wolf] as well as the other members of the committee and 
the staff, for the attention they have given the Indiana projects over 
the years. I hope that next year they will continue to remember those 
Indiana projects. They are, as some people might say, out in the far 
Midwest. But I do thank them for the attention they have given to the 
Indiana projects.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise with somewhat of a question. It has come to my 
attention through the Indianapolis Center for Air Traffic Controllers 
that the equipment they are using to take care of and handle the 
increasing flow of traffic is still antiquated, that the most up-to-
date equipment is not available to them, and that the trust account is 
not being used.
  Is that because it is included in the budget restraints? The trust 
account for the airport and airways fund is still available, is it not? 
Can anyone tell me why we are unable to fund some of the updating and 
upgrading of equipment especially?
  They do a great job with the equipment they have, but they tell me 
they could do a better job if they had the more updated, sophisticated 
equipment.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to my chairman for an answer.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would answer by saying it really 
is not a problem of budget constraints. There have been serious 
development problems in the airway systems modernization. There have 
been problems and delays and cost overruns in the AAS systems and the 
other associated subsystems to the modernization. But these problems 
are getting worked out. I believe we will be back on track, although 
there has been much delay from where we had hoped to be at this time. 
It is not, I would tell the gentleman, a matter of budget constraints.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
response. We all use the airways frequently, and a lot of business 
people have to travel frequently. We expect the best and we get the 
best, I think, in air traffic controllers, but if there is better 
equipment available, it could make safety devices more available to the 
air traffic controllers and those who use the airways, and I think we 
should have it.
  I appreciate the response here. As you go to the other body and we 
stay here in this body, we will try to work together, I hope, next 
year, to improve safety in the airways. Again I thank the gentleman for 
what the committee has done for us in Indiana.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Wolf] has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] has 9 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I merely want to take this time to thank all of my 
colleagues for their kind words of tribute. It has been a pleasure 
working not only with the subcommittee but with each and every Member 
of this House.
  We have tried to lead by example, and I would say that if someone 
really wants to pay tribute to the work I have contributed, I hope that 
the subcommittee will continue to refine and perfect the initiative 
that we started two years ago to make sure that decisions are based on 
economic merit, and that we reduce the politics in decisionmaking when 
we make investments of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. We must 
respect the hard work that earned those dollars that are given to us by 
way of taxes and returned by way of investment.
  So if anyone is really interested in a tribute, they will continue 
the process of trying to put merit before politics when the committee 
makes its decisions.
  I also want to say that it has been a tremendous pleasure working 
with the Members of this body. I hear and read, as every American does, 
the criticisms of the Congress and the President, and I have to say 
that in the years that I have been privileged to serve, I feel there 
are no finer men and women serving our country than those who serve in 
this body, the other body, and the executive agencies. I think 
sometimes, even though it is an election year and things get said, it 
also needs to be said that we ought to tone down the volume a little 
bit.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and I have had a tremendous 
relationship, a working relationship, a bipartisan relationship, in 
operating this committee, and it is due to his efforts that we have 
been successful. We have tried to do the best we could for all 
Americans. There are no Republican roads or Democratic bridges. There 
are no liberal ports or conservative airports. We serve America, and it 
seems to me that we have gotten ourselves a little bit into some petty 
partisan bickering from time to time, and I would hope that in the 
years ahead we could tone down that volume because the American people 
fundamentally, first and foremost, expect us to be listening to them 
and not be so concerned about listening to one another.

                              {time}  1130

  If we put the American people first, we are going to make sure that 
their priorities are in front of us, and that we carry out our 
responsibility to this great country of ours.
  I want to thank all my colleagues for the kindnesses that they have 
contributed to my career. I apologize to anyone who I unintentionally 
offended in the heat of battle. But this has been one terrific 
experience.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
agreement on H.R. 4556, appropriations for the Department of 
Transportation and related agencies for fiscal year 1995.
  I want to draw special attention to the Federal Transit 
Administration's national planning and research account. The House bill 
provided approximately $26 million for the various research and 
development programs and activities funded by this account, including 
the advanced transportation systems program authorized in section 6071 
of ISTEA. The Senate bill transferred $10 million from section 9 
activities to the national planning and research account, thus 
increasing the total appropriation for that account to a level of 
approximately $36 million. This $10 million increase was sought and 
secured for the specific purpose of ensuring that certain projects 
under the advanced transportation systems program are funded at an 
adequate level. The conferees reduced the transfer to $8 million, but 
the intent remains the same. I except that the FTA will recognize this 
and act accordingly.
  Mr. Speaker, the advanced transportation Systems program provides 
vital funding to industry-led consortia, including the California-based 
CALSTART, engaged in the development of various clean transit 
technologies. These technologies will help us improve air quality, 
reduce our dependence on oil imports, increase our global 
competitiveness and create new high quality jobs. I commend my 
colleagues for recognizing the importance of this program, and I urge 
them to join me in supporting passage of this measure.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
conference report on H.R. 4556 which includes important funding for 
transportation projects across America for the 1995 fiscal year.
  I want to take a moment and thank Chairman Carr for all his efforts 
on behalf of a project which is central to my region's future, Westside 
Light Rail. This conference report includes $98 million for the 
Westside Light Rail project in my district that will extend from 
Downtown Portland to Downtown Hillsboro. Oregon's unique land-use laws 
ensure that growth is properly managed and the quality of life all 
Oregonians have come to enjoy is protected. Westside Light Rail is key 
to this planned future in my region of the country, and this conference 
report marks the second year in a row that this project has been funded 
at record levels.
  As one of my top priorities in Congress, I have extolled the virtues 
of Westside Light Rail to almost anyone willing to listen. I want to 
express my most sincere thanks to my friend Senator Hatfield for all 
his efforts on the Senate side to advance the Westside project over the 
past 2 years, and making the project a reality before I came to 
Congress. My friends Ron Wyden and Pete DeFazio have worked with me on 
ensuring that Westside stays on track. In fact, the entire delegation 
has been supportive and I want to extend my personal thanks to all 
these people.
  I wish Chairman Carr luck in his future endeavors, and urge all my 
colleagues to support this important conference report.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the subcommittee again 
used the investment criteria written last year to judge and select new 
projects to be funded in this bill. The use of these standards assures 
taxpayers the best projects for their dollars.
  I am also very pleased that the subcommittee included funding for 
Metra, the commuter rail division of the Regional Transportation 
Authority of northeast Illinois, of $2.5 million for the Wisconsin 
Central. This is a new commuter rail project that Metra is undertaking 
to serve the northwest suburbs of Chicago. In fact, the Wisconsin 
Central will be the first new commuter rail line in the Chicago area 
since 1926. This rail line will serve a significant population, reduce 
traffic congestion, benefit the environment and will be one of the most 
cost-effective commuter rail operations in the country.
  Over the past 2 years, I have had the opportunity to work with Metra 
on the Wisconsin Central rail line, which will provide commuter service 
to downtown Chicago for many of my constituents.
  I am pleased to be able to say that the bulk of the funding for this 
project has already been raised by State and local efforts and, as a 
result, only a small amount of Federal funding has been requested.
  The $2.5 million appropriation included in the bill will allow Metra 
to begin initial service on the Wisconsin Central in the spring of 
1996--and will allow Metra to initiate Phase II improvements--such as 
additional tracks in critical areas to decrease travel time and 
additional trains during rush hour to better serve the reverse commute.
  One of the truly outstanding members of the Appropriations Committee 
is the ranking member of the Transportation Subcommittee, my friend and 
colleague, Frank Wolf of Virginia. He has always addressed projects 
with an eye to keeping spending under control and working responsibly 
to find those which are most cost effective and worthy of support. I 
appreciate his strong support for the Wisconsin Central project and his 
efforts to ensure that this bill include equitable funding levels for 
all project named in both the House and Senate versions of the bill. I 
know of the difficult budgetary constraints facing the subcommittee, 
and I thank the subcommittee for their hard work on this bill.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to express my strong 
support for the conference report accompanying H.R. 4556, the 
Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995, and commend 
Chairman Bob Carr for his leadership in crafting this agreement. His 
fairness and diligence has produced an important work product and 
established an important precedent in the public policy arena. I also 
want to thank my colleagues on the committee on both sides of the aisle 
for their contributions to the bill, as well as the professional and 
associate staff members.
  The conference agreement appropriates approximately $14 billion for 
critical transportation issues in fiscal year 1995, and funds the 
important work of the Department of Transportation and its agencies 
which include the Coast Guard, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal 
Highway Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal 
Transit Administration, Research and Special Programs Administration, 
and related agencies.
  The agreement reflects the fact that many difficult choices had to be 
made by both bodies. While Members may have specific concerns about 
funding priorities, it is important to remember the process which 
brought us to this point. Both Chambers worked their will through their 
respective appropriations procedures. The House marks reflect hours of 
committees hearings and review of economically based investment 
criteria for consideration of special funding requests by States and 
local communities. This will provide much needed jobs across the 
country while making important infrastructure improvements, 
contributing to environmental cleanup, and helping in the war against 
drugs.
  I appreciate the consideration given by the conference to those 
projects important to the Southwest border region, the State of Texas, 
and my district of El Paso. One critical piece of conference report 
language relates to need for transportation infrastructure funding 
along our country's northern and southern border regions, especially as 
the United States, Mexico, and Canada move to implement the North 
American Free-Trade Agreement. Other provisions will address mass 
transit projects in Texas, including important bus projects in El Paso. 
The purchase of alternative fuel buses in my city will help address 
environmental concerns in my community, and a new transit facility in 
El Paso's Lower Valley will aid bus commuters and economic development 
in this historic area.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this conference report.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report. This Member is pleased that this conference report includes 
funding for a feasibility and corridor study for a proposed south and 
east bypass for Lincoln, NE, by examining alternative routes that at 
this point are exclusively outside the city limits.
  This Member thanks the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Carr], the chairman of the House Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], 
the ranking member of the subcommittee, and all of the conferees for 
their help in funding this important project.
  While this bypass study is critically needed, the City of Lincoln's 
Metropolitan Planning Organization receives only about $190,000 per 
year for planning activities. Clearly, a study of this magnitude would 
require additional funding in order to be undertaken.
  The current transportation network in Lincoln, NE, a city of nearly 
200,000 inhabitants, is under financial stress and a new approach must 
be studied to implement a new transportation system. The approach which 
seems to make the most sense is the completion of a circumferential 
roadway system by the development of highway segments south and east of 
the city. This possible circumferential roadway would help meet current 
needs and accommodate future growth before such development of these 
highway corridors becomes prohibitively expensive. A beltway highway 
for Lincoln has been discussed for more than three decades and the need 
to implement such a plan becomes more apparent each year.
  A recent city task force looking at the possibility of the beltway 
determined that the development of such a system would be a crucial 
component of the regional transportation network which would accomplish 
the goals of moving traffic around congested urban areas and providing 
for an expanded capacity of the urban system.
  In addition, a truck route study was recently prepared for the city 
of Lincoln. One of the conclusions reached by the study was that a very 
key element, if not the most important element of the Lincoln truck 
study implementation plan is construction and completion of the East-
South Bypass link. That study found this proposed project would 
complete the beltway system for the city of Lincoln, thus enabling 
major amounts of regional traffic to bypass the major urban development 
areas of Lincoln.
  This Member would also like to stress that he has received written 
assurances from the city of Lincoln and the Nebraska Department of 
Roads that the current National Highway System designations are 
surrogate or temporary designations that will be replaced by new route 
designations when the bypass study identifies the desired route 
locations. This Member is voting for this legislation with that 
understanding.
  This Member would further stress that the eventual corridor 
designation must be exclusively outside the city limits of the city of 
Lincoln. Although the study will determine the optimal corridor zone, 
this Member would like to reiterate what he stated before the Committee 
on Public Works' Subcommittee on Surface Transportation on March 8, 
1994. This Member believes it would be preferable to locate the eastern 
segment on or between 96th and 134th Street and the southern segment on 
or between Yankee Hill Road and Saltillo Road. With respect to the 
southern route, this Member believes the corridor should be located no 
farther north than Yankee Hill Road and possibly south of Saltillo 
Road.

  This Member would also like to express his appreciation for the 
continued support for the proposed bridge between the Newcastle, 
Nebraska area and Vermillion, SD. For six decades, the prospect of 
constructing a bridge in the Newcastle-Vermillion area has enjoyed 
widespread support. An impressive coalition of community organizations, 
local governments, businesses, and individuals from both Nebraska and 
South Dakota has joined together in support of this bridge.
  Such a bi-State consensus is possible because the benefits resulting 
from the bridge's construction are so clear to all. These benefits 
include increased economic development, enhanced recreational 
opportunities, improved access to health care, and a reduction in 
transportation costs. Also, the construction of this bridge will 
improve the general quality of life for the area's residents by 
creating additional opportunities for higher education and cultural and 
social activities.
  Due to the current lack of a bridge in this region, communities in 
northeast Nebraska and southeast South Dakota--including Vermillion, 
SD, the location of the University of South Dakota--have remained 
isolated from each other despite their proximity. As a result, economic 
activity in the region has been hampered and labor and commerce options 
have been limited. Clearly, the completion of this bridge across the 
Missouri River will be a significant aid in attracting new businesses 
to the area.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member is convinced that this bridge, when 
completed, will serve as a connector for one of two major north-south 
routes across Nebraska. In addition, to act as a connector it will 
first require a new highway connection between Wayne, NE, and the 
bridge; and second, it will require an upgrading of the highway between 
Wayne and Norfolk, NE to connect to U.S. 81 which is currently being 
upgraded. This will mean that from the Kansas border, near Chester, NE, 
there will be a direct link across Nebraska to Vermillion, SD, and I-29 
to points north, northeast, and northwest.
  This Member would also like to thank the committee and subcommittee 
for continuing to recognize the need for a bridge between Niobrara, NE, 
and Springfield, SD. Initial authorization for such a bridge is 
contained in a provision of Public Law 100-17, the Surface 
Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987. An 
authorization of $4.7 million was also including in the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. However, this amount was 
less than originally requested and less than necessary to complete the 
project.
  Because of redistricting, the Nebraska portion of this project is now 
in the district of the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Barrett]. However, due to this Member's previous efforts and the 
tremendous need for this bridge, this Member remains very supportive of 
this project.

  The proposed Niobrara-Springfield bridge has enjoyed widespread 
support from residents on both sides of the river as well as local and 
State officials. Since 1927, efforts have been made to construct this 
much needed bridge. The issue became even more critical in the mid-
1980's with the abandonment of ferry service. As a result of a previous 
legislative initiative, the Department of Transportation directed the 
Nebraska Department of Roads and the South Dakota Department of 
Transportation to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
reinstituting ferry service. The report, which was completed in 
December 1987, estimated that the car ferry would cost approximately $5 
million to $6 million. Because of the Department of Roads' analysis 
that a bridge could be built for far less than was previously 
discussed, the bridge option became more attractive.
  Motorists, farmers, and businesspeople would benefit greatly from the 
reduced travel distance if this bridge is built. Also, because of the 
beneficial impact this bridge would have on the Indian tribes in the 
area, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has expressed its support for the 
project. For example, by reducing the driving time from the Santee 
Sioux reservation to the Indian Health Service facility in Wagner, SD, 
the bridge would play an important role in improving medical care for 
the tribes served by the facility.
  This Member would also like to thank his distinguished colleague from 
South Dakota [Mr. Johnson] for his outstanding efforts and cooperation 
with this Member on behalf of these interstate bridge projects. The 
completion of these bridges will play an important role in facilitating 
a mutually positive interdependence between communities in Nebraska and 
South Dakota. Mr. Johnson deserves recognition for the important role 
he has played in bringing this goal closer to reality. It has been a 
pleasure to continue the close and good cooperation on this and other 
bistate projects and issues.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr], the chairman of the House 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, and all of the conferees for their cooperation in 
including these important projects in this conference report.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous 
question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________