[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 119 (Friday, July 21, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7385-H7397]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2002, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
             AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 194 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 194

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution, the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2002) making appropriations for
      the Department of Transportation and related agencies for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. Points of order against consideration of the bill 
     for failure to comply with clause 3 of rule XIII or 
     section 401(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are 
     waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. The bill shall be considered by title rather than by 
     paragraph. Each title shall be considered as read. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as 
     follows: beginning with the colon on page 4, line 17, 
     through ``transportation'' on page 6, line 2; beginning 
     with ``operations'' on page 11, line 23, through the comma 
     on line 25; beginning with the figure on page 20, line 12, 
     through the comma before ``and'' on line 13; beginning 
     with the colon on page 20, line 14, through the citation 
     on line 19; page 27, lines 22 through 25; page 28, lines 3 
     through 8; page 28, lines 21 through 24; page 29, lines 3 
     and 4; page 29, lines 7 through 10; page 29, lines 15 and 
     16; page 29, line 23, through page 30, line 6; page 48, 
     lines 5 through 7; page 51, lines 14 through 22; page 53, 
     lines 1 through 13; page 54, lines 3 through 24; and page 
     55, line 1, through page 63, line 6. Where points of order 
     are waived against part of a paragraph, points of order 
     against a provision in another part of such paragraph may 
     be made only against such provision and not against the 
     entire paragraph. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed 
     in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for 
     that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. It shall be in order 
     at any time to consider the amendment printed in part 2 of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. The amendment may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
     Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the 
     amendment printed in part 2 of the report are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment 
     the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
     with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purposes of debate only.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 194 is an open rule, providing for 
consideration of H.R. 2002, the Transportation appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 1996 with 1 hour of general debate.
  I will be offering an amendment to the rule that resolves concerns 
between the Transportation Committee and the Appropriations Committee. 
The 

[[Page H7386]]
amendments is being offered because the appropriators and the 
authorizers were able to come to further agreement after the rule was 
passed out of our committee.
  This rule provides for fair and open consideration of the 
Transportation appropriations bill while providing the necessary 
protections we need to be able to bring the bill up for consideration 
by the full House.
  The rule waives clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized and 
legislative provisions on an appropriations bill, except for provisions 
in the bill relating to the Safe Communities Program and the central 
artery project. The rule also provides that upon adoption of the 
resolution, appropriations for the national driver register and certain 
new start transit projects, as described in the rule, will be made 
available subject to House passage of an authorization bill. This 
provision preserves the working protocol that has applied for all 
appropriation bills this session calling for agreement between the 
authorization and the appropriation before including unauthorized 
expenditures in an appropriations bill.
  Accordingly the rule ensures that funds would not be made available 
until the House deliberates and votes on whether or not to fund these 
new start transit projects and the national driver register as part of 
the normal authorizing process.
  Further, the rule waives section 401(a) of the Budget Act that 
prohibits contract authority spending in excess of levels already 
authorized; waives clause 6 of rule XXI prohibiting reappropriations; 
waives clause 3 of rule XIII requiring that a committee bill report 
contain the text of a statute being repealed within that bill; and 
provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Finally, the rule makes in order an amendment consisting of the 
complete text of H.R. 2, the line-item veto bill as passed by the House 
on February 6, 1995. This gives us an opportunity to reaffirm our 
commitment to passage of a line-item veto.
                              {time}  1040

  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, we are very concerned about this rule that provides 
for the consideration of H.R. 2002, the fiscal year 1996 Transportation 
appropriations bill. We regret that we must oppose it.
  We supported the resolution as it was reported from the Committee on 
Rules, although we were aware of some problems with the original rule. 
For example, many of us were concerned that the majority on the 
Committee on Rules gave the line item veto provision protection under 
the rule. While we all agree that reducing the Federal deficit is one 
of the most important tasks facing us in the Congress, and the 
President must have tools to help accomplish that task, the text of 
H.R. 2002, which the rule makes in order, should not be part of this 
debate today.
  It is yet another example of protection for a controversial and major 
change in law, and one that the House and the other body have already 
had the opportunity to work their will on. The process is working, 
Madam Speaker, even if it is a little slower than some Members would 
like.
  Nonetheless, Madam Speaker, we felt that, overall, the rule as it was 
reported on Wednesday was proper and was fair. We have generally been 
supportive of the majority's stated intention to provide open, 
unrestricted rules for as many of the appropriations bills as possible, 
and for its policy of providing waivers of House rules only when the 
authorizing committees agree to those waivers.
  This rule was in compliance with those goals. Unfortunately, whether 
because of oversights and errors or because of the opposition from some 
in the majority party to the rule as it was reported, or perhaps some 
combination of these reasons, we are now being asked to consider a 
controversial amendment that changes entirely the nature of the rule as 
reported. We do not believe that this is the fair or right thing to do, 
Madam Speaker.
  We are especially concerned that the amendment to the rule will 
provide a waiver of rule 212 for a provision in H.R. 2002 that repeals 
section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Action Act, that section of law 
that provides labor protections for transit workers. Under section 
13(c), the Department of Labor reviews all Federal grants to transit 
agencies to ensure that the Federal money would not be used to the 
detriment
 of transit employees.

  As the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] testified in the 
Committee on Rules, when Congress passed the Urban Mass Transportation 
Act, we entered into a contract with transit employees. Congress said 
that the use of Federal funds to be used to acquire private transit 
companies should not worsen the transit employees' position. Section 
13(c) is thus, in effect, a contract made with the concurrence of the 
transit industry with transit employees.
  Madam Speaker, in a show of bipartisan unity that is somewhat rare 
these days, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the chairman 
and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] 
and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the 
Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], 
all asked that the Committee on Rules not protect that section of the 
bill which includes the provision to repeal section 13(c), and to 
abrogate existing collective bargaining agreements.
  We feel strongly that the bipartisan request of these Members, 
including those who represent the committee with legislative 
jurisdiction over the section, should have been honored.
  Madam Speaker, whether or not one supports section 13(c) is not the 
point of our objection. The point is that we should not even be 
debating the complex issues presented by this section as an add-on to 
an appropriations bill. In fact, we should not consider the repeal of 
any major provision of any law in the context of an annual 
appropriations bill; but certainly we should not be asked to protect 
such a provision from a point of view when the leadership of the 
authorizing committees disagree unanimously with including the 
provision in an appropriations bill, and strenuously object to our 
doing so, as in fact they do.
  This sweeping legislative change will have an enormous effect on 
transit workers and their families in many of our Nation's cities. An 
issue of this magnitude should go through the normal legislative 
process, with hearings, markup, and consideration on
 the floor that is handled by the authorizing committee. That is how 
Members should decide on the validity of section 13(c). Its repeal 
should not be part of an appropriation bill.

  Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, we have other concerns about 
the rule, but we have generally been supportive, as I have said, of the 
attempts by the majority on the Committee on Rules to report most of 
the appropriations bills with basically open rules.
  We have, however, been critical of the committee's decisions to 
provide waivers of standing House rules for provisions in the bills as 
reported by the Committee on Appropriations when waivers have not been 
provided for amendments that Members are seeking to offer. We thought 
in this rule as reported that we had reached a fairly good balance in 
that respect, and we very much regret that objections to the rule as 
reported mean that the provision repealing section 13(c) will be 
protected from the rule by a point of order, while several Members were 
denied similar protection for amendments that they sought to offer to 
the bill.
  In particular, Madam Speaker, we object to this waiver if the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] is not accorded the same protection 
for his amendment to reform, rather than to repeal, section 13(c), and 
we believe that serious oversight should be corrected.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 2002 is a very important piece of legislation, 
affecting, as it does, the transportation and 

[[Page H7387]]
infrastructure decisions our communities will be making in the years to 
come. The bill affects all Americans. Many of us regret that the bill 
slights funding for mass transit and that it slights funding for 
central transportation safety programs. Many of us who support strong 
fuel economy standards, the corporate average fuel economy standards, 
so-called, for automobiles, are concerned that they are frozen in the 
bill. Nonetheless, we had hoped to be able to consider the bill and our 
objections to it under a fair and open rule.
  We regret that apparently will not be the case. The only fair way to 
deal with this situation would be to allow the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Coleman] to offer his amendment that proposes reform of section 
13(c). If the previous question is defeated, that is the amendment, in 
fact, that we will offer.
  We cannot express strongly enough our opposition
   to the amendment to the rule, especially when the request of the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] to be given waivers to protect his 
amendment was denied. Again, Madam Speaker, we oppose the amendment to 
the rule. If we must be required to address the repeal of a major law 
in an appropriations bill, both sides should have the opportunity to 
present their case and Members should be permitted to consider a 
reasonable alternative to the repeal of that law.

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me address the concerns that have been raised by 
the gentleman from California. First, with regard to the line-item 
veto, I want to stress that the inclusion of the language in this 
particular bill regarding line-item veto is designed to simply allow us 
an opportunity to reaffirm what this body has already done.
  On February 6 of this year, this House passed the line-item veto 
provision. The language that is included in this rule is identical to 
the language that was previously passed on February 6, so we are not 
asking for the House to change its previous action. We simply included 
this as a means to reemphasize the commitment that this House has to a 
line-item veto. We chose to include it in an appropriations bill 
because there is nothing that the line-item veto is more pertinent to 
than appropriations.
  The whole point of a line-item veto in the hands of the President is 
to allow the President the opportunity to veto specific line items 
included in appropriations bills passed by this House. We felt
 that it was appropriate in light of the delay that we feel is 
happening between trying to bring together the versions passed in the 
House and Senate that at this time in the appropriations process, we 
wanted to allow the House the opportunity to reemphasize its support 
for this measure that passed overwhelmingly earlier this year.

  Let me also address the particular rule amendment that I will be 
offering at the close of this debate. Once again, Madam Speaker, I want 
to emphasize that these changes were made in accordance with the 
protocol that has been followed by the Committee on Rules and by the 
authorizers and the appropriators throughout this appropriations 
process in that these changes are made as a result of agreement between 
the chairman of the authorizing committee, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the gentleman from the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], and the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  There were some concerns between these gentleman that had not been 
resolved as of the time the Committee on Rules considered and passed 
out this rule. After the rule was passed by our committee, they were 
able to resolve some of these differences, and the amendment that we 
are presenting today reflects the agreement that they were able to 
reach. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with this procedure 
that we have followed with what we have done in previous appropriations 
bills. Once again, what is being included is a result of agreement 
worked out between the appropriators and the authorizers. We have had 
similar waivers for every other appropriations bill that has come 
before this House so far this year.
  Let me say one other word. That is about the 13(c) provision. What we 
are attempting to do is simply allowing the House the opportunity to 
discuss this measure. We believe it is important that the House discuss 
this measure now, as the outcome of the debate on 13(c) will have a 
definite impact on funding requirements for transportation throughout 
our Nation. The waiver in the rule protects language in the bill that 
repeals section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act regarding labor 
issues. Under this open rule, Members are allowed to offer amendments 
affecting the provision, allowing for consideration by this House and 
for vote by the entire membership.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster], chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the substitute rule 
being offered today. I had gone to the Committee on Rules and requested 
that several items that are legislative in nature and therefore would 
be violations of rule XXI, that they not be protected from points of 
order. The original rule acceded to my request on these items. Since 
that point we have had several discussions with the leadership on some 
of the items of concern and have reached an accommodation.
  I am pleased to say in the report that I will be allowed to raise 
points of order against two legislative provisions, and I intend to do 
so: the central artery language, and appropriations for the Safe 
Communities Program, which is unauthorized.
  In addition, unauthorized transit projects, as well as the national 
driver register, will be made subject to an authorization in a House-
passed bill. This is essentially what I have been requesting, and this 
protects the integrity of the House rules, as well as the prerogatives 
and jurisdiction of the authorizing committee.
  In addition, we have been able to reach accommodation on legislative 
language relating to the Hot Springs Airport. The substitute rule does 
not grant my request to leave unprotected the repeal of section 13(c) 
of the Federal Transit Act, as well as a related provision concerning 
arbitration of disputes in the National Capital region. I understand 
that these are leadership initiatives, and I support the leadership on 
protecting these provisions.
  Madam Speaker, therefore, I urge support for the substitute rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Coleman], a member of the Subcommittee on Transportation of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset, and I should 
say also to my colleague from Pennsylvania, we have problems certainly 
on this side of the aisle with this particular amendment to the rule 
being brought to the floor of the House. It is a break with tradition, 
certainly. Let me just say, I was handed 2 minutes ago this Waldholtz 
amendment. We have had days to go before the Committee on Rules, yet 
they cut some kind of deal behind closed doors.
  I do not understand why we wanted the public not to take a part in 
the rules process. What happened in the negotiations? Who was in them? 
I do not know. Who said what? We do not know. I was told just a minute 
ago by the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, the authorizing committee, that the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations was involved in negotiations. That is 
interesting. The public does not know that, do they, unless we just 
take their word for it? We do not know what was said in there. I think 
this is a terrible way to do business.
  On their side of the aisle they started out this session of Congress 
by clamoring for openness, telling us how we are going to change all 
these kinds of things, and yet here we are, breaking with the tradition 
of the House and amending a rule on the floor. They could go back to 
the Committee on Rules in open public debate and discuss what they are 
doing, but they do not want to do that.
  Last week we amended the Interior appropriations bill to limit 
debate. I 

[[Page H7388]]
think there might have been some ability on the part of everyone to 
understand that process, but to do this this way is ridiculous. Let me 
tell the Members some of the things they protected and did not protect. 
That is why this rule ought to be defeated. Let me tell Members what 
this new amendment to the rule protects.
  As Members may or may not know, there are 13 transit projects that we 
determined in our Subcommittee on Transportation, 13 transit projects 
that had not been authorized by the authorizing committee. Yet, the 
chairman, a Republican, the gentleman from Virginia, Frank Wolf, 
decided nonetheless we should fund these. Our side of the aisle agreed 
that yes, many of these are ongoing, many of these are planned, and we 
should fund them, but in order to fund them, you have to protect them 
under the rule.
  The chairman of the authorizing committee went to the Committee on 
Rules and said, ``Do not protect unauthorized legislation,'' we will 
get an authorization for these that we think are valid and ought to be 
authorized. Sure enough, the Committee on Rules, in open public debate, 
agreed. They said, ``You are right, we should not appropriate these 
unauthorized projects.'' We all accepted that.
  Let me say to the Members, there were 15 or 20 Members of Congress 
that did not like that, but it was probably the right thing to do. I 
congratulate the Committee on Rules for doing it. However, hold the 
phone, wait a minute, we now have an amendment here on the floor that I 
got to see 2 minutes ago, not in front of the Committee on rules, not 
open to public debate, not written about, permitted to be written about 
by the media. Here it is, right here. I got to see it just 2 minutes 
ago. Wait a minute, have we had a public debate on the Committee on 
Rules on this issue? No.
  Let me tell the Members what they do. Let me tell Members about these 
13 projects. These are just an example of what they did. Let me tell 
about these 13 unauthorized projects, as we were told. They protected 
Canton-Akron-Cleveland Commuter, $6.5 million. We cannot strike it on a 
point of order. Wait a minute, we have got to go to the authorizing 
committee on DART North Central, DART Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN, 
Miami-North 27th Avenue, Memphis Regional Rail, New Orleans Canal 
Street, Orange County Transit Way.
  Hold it, wait a minute. We are going to protect St. Louis--St. Clair 
extension. No, the Puerto Rico issue is going to have to be authorized 
again. Tampa to Lakeland Whitehall Ferry Terminal, Wisconsin Central 
Commuter; hold it, we are going to protect Pittsburgh Airport, phase 1, 
$22.630 million.
  We are picking and choosing in this amendment, already picking and 
choosing? Let us not make any mistake about it, when we vote, when we 
vote today in a few minutes, or whenever it is that the determination 
is made to vote on the previous question, a motion can be made by the 
author, the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], when we have the 
opportunity to vote on this particular motion, what happens is that we 
self-enact these.
  Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the Republicans are going 
to break with the tradition of this House and substantially amend a 
rule on the floor. I say it is my understanding, and not that I know, 
because I have not been consulted on this issue. It is not that I 
haven't been available. We were all here late into the night. I spent 
most of yesterday and this morning in committee with my colleagues on 
the other side. My staff has reached out to theirs and still not even a 
word to advise or counsel. That does not make for a family friendly 
schedule either for myself or my staff.
  Last week, we amended the rule governing debate on the Interior 
appropriations bill to limit debate. This was done with the 
consultation of the ranking Democrat of the Appropriations Committee. I 
have consulted with many Members with more tenure than I and all agree 
that amending a rule is without precedent in modern times. Because it 
was for the good of the consideration of that bill and was limited to 
time restrictions, Democrats agreed.
  I understand the frustration those on the other side must feel on the 
slow process of open rules. I too am frustrated. Long did Members 
across the aisle object when the Democratic majority wrote rules on 
appropriations bills limiting debate and in those instances where we 
felt an immediate need, protecting certain
 provisions from points of order. I do not wish to mislead anyone. When 
we were in charge, we tried to cultivate rules which allowed a 
reasonable amount of time for debate, but yet provided guidelines so 
that the appropriations process moved along at an efficient pace. 
However, the amendment that the majority is going to offer today does 
not limit debate. It substantially changes the rule. This is a 
dangerous precedent and frankly I am surprised that a leadership that 
prides itself on open rules and open debate would go behind closed 
doors after the legislative process had worked in the open, then cut a 
deal significantly changing the rule. You could have returned to the 
Rules Committee, pleaded your case again, and asked for a second rule, 
but that would have required a 1-day layover on the rule and we 
couldn't wait 1 day--even though it would serve to preserve the 
integrity of the House and of the legislative process. Also it would 
have been open to the public.

  The frustration over the pace of the appropriations bill on the floor 
is no reason to set new precedent in this Chamber and move to 
substantially amend a rule on the floor, because a few, albeit 
influential members, did not get their way in the Rules Committee. The 
reason we have the Rules Committee is so that the competing interests 
of all Members may be heard when setting the parameters of debate. That 
is what we did on this bill. All the Members interested in shaping the 
rule went to the committee and pleaded its case.
  No one got everything they asked for and a few Members were unhappy 
with the rule. So what did the leadership do? It went behind closed 
doors to draft an amendment changing the rule. In this case, the 
leadership not only blocks the constructive input of the minority, it 
suffocates the will of a significant portion of majority Members.
  I am disappointed that the majority has chosen to do this on the 
transportation appropriations bill. This is one of the few 
appropriations bills both sides agreed would move through with little 
rancor. While not completely enamored with the bill, I had conceded 
several times in testimony and in conversation to Members that Chairman 
Wolf had dealt with the bill in a fairly evenhanded manner--until now.
  What does the Republican amendment do? Well, that's a good question 
and until just a few minutes ago I didn't know for sure. This amendment 
that Republicans will offer at some unknown point, will reverse the 
decision of the Rules Committee and rewrite major labor laws. It does 
not strike the ability to attach the line-item veto to this bill--
legislation which has already passed this House and which we are 
supposed to go to conference with the Senate on who does not agree with 
our approach. Again, that is why we have the deliberative process. The 
leadership has said that it did not want to bog down the appropriations 
process
 with authorizing legislation. That is what allowing this provision to 
remain does.

  Adhering to the procedures of the House, I testified before the Rules 
Committee and asked that three legislative items not be protected in 
the rule. Two of those items repeal labor protection provisions--
section 13(c) collective-bargaining rights and arbitration standards 
for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, a matter never 
discussed in our subcommittee. I also asked the Rules Committee to make 
in order my amendment to reform instead of repeal one of the 
provisions, section 13(c) if they protected its repeal. The Rules 
Committee, which is comprised of nine Republicans and four Democrats, 
did not protect the two labor provisions as requested by the chairman 
of the subcommittee, allowing opponents to strike these ill-advised 
provisions. This amendment--crafted behind closed doors and without 
precedence on the House floor--reverses that decision.
  We all agree that section 13(c) needs to be reformed. However, as 
demonstrated by the close 23-to-25 vote my reform amendment experienced 
in the Appropriations Committee, there is no consensus on this issue. I 
believe this issue is better left to the authorizing committees and the 
Department of Labor. Repealing section 13(c) is an attack on the 
collective-bargaining rights or our Nation's 200,000 transit workers. I 
understand that the chairman believes that repeal of section 13(c) will 
somehow help to compensate for the disproportionate reduction in funds 
that transit took in this bill.
  Section 13(c) is intended to assure that the distribution of Federal 
grants to local transit systems does not harm transit workers and that 
employee issues arising out of Federal transit grants are properly 
addressed through collective bargaining. In its 30-year history, 13(c) 
has provided a remarkable measure of labor-management stability in an 
industry that has experienced unprecedented growth and change. In 
urban, suburban, and rural communities alike, 13(c) has provided an 
effective system for transit systems to manage significant changes 
without harming employees.
  For those of us who are genuinely concerned about the delays 
attributed to the 13(c) program, striking the repeal or allowing my 

[[Page H7389]]
amendment would have allowed the Department of Labor a reasonable 
amount of time to process the 13(c) applications. The Department of 
Labor has moved to address concerns about the time it takes to certify 
some labor agreements. On June 29, the Department published in the 
Federal Register substantive revisions to the 1978 guidelines which 
will leave in place the important employee protections, but will 
establish strict timeframes for the certification of protections in a 
more expeditious and predictable manner. Under these proposed rules, 
DOL certification permitting the release of funds will occur within 60 
days.
  I have heard from literally thousands of the transit workers who will 
be effected by this repeal. Workers from Dallas, TX; Orange County, NJ; 
La Mesa, CA, and elsewhere. They all share the same sentiment ``please 
don't take away the assurance of collective bargaining.'' Collective 
bargaining was created so that disruptions in labor caused by Federal 
grants could be dealt with in a manner fair for management and labor. 
This amendment to the rule protects the repeal of section 13(c) making 
it impossible for me to offer a reform amendment.
  The third provision I requested not be protected, but the Rules 
Committee did protect from a point of order is a section in the bill 
forcing DOT employees receiving workers compensation who are eligible 
to retire should retire. Sounds good on the face of it. However, what 
the bill and report don't tell you is that substantial numbers of these 
retirees are disabled. They have been receiving workers compensation 
for several years. When you receive workers compensation, no money is 
credited toward the retirement system. Therefore, if you were an Air 
Traffic Controller who had 5 years of Federal service before becoming 
totally disabled for work in 1976, you would be eligible for the 
minimum retirement annuity--$130 month. This is drastically less than 
wage-loss benefit under the present system. How do you expect a 
disabled Federal employee to live on $130 a month?
  Unfortunately when the doors were closed and member's projects were 
being protected, the disabled Federal employee was not.
  We will probably not have a lot of time before the vote against the 
previous question. As demonstrated by the fact that we just received 
the amendment, the majority does not want these substantive changes to 
the amendment aired on the floor of the House. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can restore reason and 
fairness to the process.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Speaker, I just entered the Chamber. Did I hear 
the gentleman say that the list of projects that he was holding are 
unauthorized?
  Did I understand correctly that that list that the gentleman is 
holding is of unauthorized projects, projects that this House or Senate 
have never authorized?
  Mr. COLEMAN. That is right. The Republican Party said at the outset, 
the day we were swearing in our new Speaker, that we were not going to 
do those kinds of things.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. If the gentleman will yield further, will the House 
have the opportunity to vote to accept these projects separately or 
collectively? Will we have a separate vote?
  Mr. COLEMAN. Absolutely not. They have protected these projects. 
There is nothing Members can do about it, even if they are 
unauthorized. They made exceptions very specifically for certain of the 
projects that they wanted to accept. I just think this is doing 
something we should not do.
  There is nothing wrong, let me say to my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, they know this, we know this, there is nothing wrong with 
going to the Committee on Rules and getting a rule they want, but can 
we not at least have a debate on these as a matter of fact? We do not 
have that. I do not understand all the rationale for the ones Members 
protected and did not protect. Is the public not entitled to know? It 
is taxpayer money, is it not? Of course it is. Do not tell us you 
cannot do that.
  Madam Speaker, I think it is time that we understand what this 
amendment does, so I say to the Members, be careful when you vote. I am 
going to ask Members on both sides of the aisle to be absolutely 
careful when they vote on making the decision on making the previous 
question. The correct vote will be ``no.''
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think it is important that we let the public know exactly what 
happened and how this rule came about. On Wednesday, the Committee on 
Rules passed out a rule that failed to protect, deliberately, by 
design, a list of projects that are unauthorized, because the 
appropriators and the authorizers had been unable to agree that they 
should be included. Accordingly, these projects that the gentleman has 
referred to were not included for protection in the rule, meaning that 
they would be subject to a point of order on the floor; that therefore, 
it would be not in order to allow them to be discussed, and that 
Members of this House would not be able to have a vote.
                              {time}  1100

  On Thursday, Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster] and others met and were able to reach further agreement. They 
agreed that these projects should be allowed to be discussed on the 
floor of the House. Amendments to knock these projects out are 
certainly in order, and such amendments have already been prefiled, but 
they agreed that the Members of this body ought to have the opportunity 
to discuss them.
  Once again, Madam Speaker, let me stress that unauthorized projects 
have been included for discussion in every appropriations bill that we 
have considered this year. But it has only been done where there has 
been agreement between the authorizers and the appropriators, and such 
agreement was reached on these projects yesterday.
  There has been some intimation that somehow this was a secret. In 
fact, Madam Speaker, I explained this rule in great detail to the 
Legislative Digest late yesterday afternoon. I explained to them 
exactly what we had done on these mass transit projects. I explained to 
them exactly what we had done on the 13(c) requirement. There is 
nothing that has been kept secret in any way here.
  This has been discussed with the news media. I assume they published 
their reports. If not, that is something over which we have no control.
  Again, let me stress at the time the rule was passed out of the 
committee there was disagreement between the authorizers and the 
appropriators as to whether they should be considered. After the rule 
was passed out, they were able to come to an additional agreement.
  It is interesting, I think, to note that the two projects about which 
the gentleman has raised the most objection are included for Members on 
his side of the aisle. The St. Louis metrolink project is a project in 
the district of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt]. The 
Pittsburgh Airport phase 1 is in the district of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Mascara].
  We are not picking and choosing, Madam Speaker. We are not favoring 
one party over another or members of one committee over members of 
another. We are treating all similarly situated projects the same.
  The projects on this list have not been authorized. There was 
disagreement. The agreement was reached that we could consider them, 
but, as this rule reflects, these projects will be subject to 
authorization by the House.
  We have two opportunities to review these projects, one in the 
appropriations process and one in the authorization process. We are not 
picking and choosing, Madam Speaker. We are allowing the Members of 
this House the opportunity to discuss these items, to make amendments 
to determine whether we want to fund them or not, all in accordance 
with the protocol that has been followed throughout this appropriations 
process.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 additional minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman].
  Mr. COLEMAN. Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman is talking about last 
Thursday. That was last night. We were in session last night until 
about 11. The amendment I have got is dated July 21, 10 a.m. That is 
today. That is about an hour ago. I think that that is not the way we 
ought to legislate.
  She says it is not done in secret. I guess not. America has had 62 
minutes to find out what is in your amendment.
  Let me just also say to the gentlewoman that last week, in dealing 
with another amendment to a rule, we did it for limiting debate. This 
is different. I hope the Members will recognize that 

[[Page H7390]]
it is different in casting their vote today.
  Adhering to the procedures of the House, I testified as a Member of 
the minority before the Committee on Rules and asked that three 
legislative items not be protected in the rule. Two of those repeal 
labor protection provisions, section 13(c) of the collective bargaining 
rights and arbitration standards for the Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Authority, a matter never discussed in our subcommittee.
  I also asked the Committee on Rules to make in order an amendment if 
they decided, like your amendment has decided this, to not protect the 
repeal of 13(c) since it is legislation. Your decision is, no, no, you 
are not going to be able to reform it.
  I asked the Committee on Rules, please, if you are going to protect 
it, at least let me have an amendment that would reform it and not 
completely repeal it. But your amendment does not allow me to do that 
because you are not the Committee on Rules.
  I hope you understand that what you are doing with this amendment is 
cutting off our rights in the minority. A lot of us think that that is 
not the way that we ought to be legislating.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman and I have been here for a number of 
years. I have been here for 17 years. I have listened during all of 
those years to a Republican marketing effort to try to convince the 
American people that the former Democratic leadership, whether it was 
Tip O'Neill, Tom Foley, Jim Wright, or whoever was corrupt, corrupt in 
part because they would not allow Republicans an up-and-down vote on 
major issues. They constantly repeated the misrepresentation that we 
had gag rules. Since I have been here, not one time, count them, not 
once have the Democrats used this kind of a stealth process to protect 
pork. Not once.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Reclaiming my time, if I might, just in closing, I would 
urge all Members to understand that on the motion to recommit that is 
going to be made by the gentlewoman from Utah, we need to be together, 
those of us who believe on both sides of the aisle that this procedure 
and this procedure is wrong, we should vote no. Let us permit the 
Committee on Rules to write a rule that the Committee on Rules is 
charged with writing.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me simply point out that, under the rules, the gentleman will 
have an opportunity to move to strike the provision on 13(c). So the 
gentleman will get an up-or-down vote on whether or not to repeal this 
particular provision. If the motion to strike is successful, then we 
will go back and be able to review this for the authorizing process. So 
there is an opportunity for the gentleman to strike this provision 
under the rules.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss], my colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Utah for 
yielding me this time. I want to commend her for the excellent job she 
is doing handling this rule. As a veteran on the Committee on Rules 
with some very good battle scars of my own from managing the 
transportation appropriations bill the last couple of years, I very 
well know the challenges posed by this particular bill and the 
difficulty coming up with a fair formula that keeps everybody happy and 
addresses every Member's concern. It is a virtual impossibility.
  Traditionally, this bill, perhaps more than others, has highlighted 
the tension that exists between the appropriators and the authorizers; 
and, frankly, that is what we are seeing played out here, some of that 
tension, and I know it is a frustrating process.
  The budget process is supposed to work so that the authorizers set 
the policy decisions which are supposed to be agreed upon by the 
Congress before the money is spent. That makes sense.
  The reality is that we seldom complete our authorizing work before 
the appropriations cycle begins and, as a result, we end up with 
spending bills that are filled with programs that have not been 
authorized and legislative provisions that in a perfect world probably 
should not be there but nevertheless are important in the Nation's 
business, which seems to have a higher priority, I think, and most do, 
than the exactness of our rules as long as our rules are free and fair, 
which is what we are trying to do.
  Let me be clear. This is not the fault of any one committee or any 
one chairman. This is the fault of a budget process that has gotten, in 
my view, much too complex, somewhat unworkable and probably not up to 
the task in our current fiscal and political environment that we have.
  The Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process of the Committee 
on Rules, working with our counterpart, the Subcommittee on Rules and 
Organization of the House, both these subcommittees together have begun 
holding hearings on the larger question of reforming the budget 
process. Of course, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
and the Government Resources and the Committee on the Budget are 
involved in this as well.
  Perhaps next time we have a transportation
   appropriations rule on the floor we will actually have some of these 
systemic problems resolved and reduce some of the tensions.

  With regard to this specific rule, I think the gentlewoman from Utah 
has spoken terribly well to the issues that are out there and what has 
happened. I think we are up to date, and I think she is absolutely 
right. There will be a fair chance to deal with these issues.
  I think the Committee on Rules has tried to develop a fair product 
that respects the wishes of the authorizers to the greatest extent 
possible, which is a guiding principle because of the situation between 
the appropriations cycle and the authorizing cycle. But we also want to 
assure that the hard work that the Committee on Appropriations has done 
in making the very tough spending decisions they have got to make as we 
get on the balanced budget glide path, we have got to preserve that 
work, too.
  This is an attempt to balance that, and I think it does pretty well. 
It contains necessary waivers in order to allow the process to move 
forward to the point it has been negotiated as we get to this part of 
our calendar.
  Madam Speaker, to my colleagues still concerned about our commitment 
to bringing forward a deficit lockbox that works, and I mention this 
because there has been a great deal of interest in it specifically, I 
remind the folks that are interested in a deficit lockbox that works 
that our Rules Committee in fact yesterday marked up a bill and we are 
hoping to keep it on track and bring it up to the floor for next week.
  We think we have got a pretty good device that is going to work 
pretty well. It is simple and it is flexible.
  Finally, I think this particular rule is written to send a strong 
signal to the other body that we are serious about our version of the 
line-item veto which we think very much is the version that will work.
  Madam Speaker, I urge support of the rule. Once again, I want to 
congratulate the gentlewoman from Utah for her professional way of 
handling this. She has described it exactly correctly, and there is 
ample opportunity for everybody to get a vote on these issues as we go 
through the total cycle.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Orton].
  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for the reasons 
stated, that it is protecting many pork projects.
  This simply shows the additional need for the line-item veto. I am 
concerned, however, that the Speaker has stated ``line-item veto bites 
the dust,'' or ``we won't get to it this year,'' as quoted in the 
Washington Times. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is even 
quoted in the Times saying, ``Perhaps the best thing is to wait until 
fall when the budget is finished. There's no sense in going through 
with it now.''

[[Page H7391]]

  I rise to commend the Committee on Rules for allowing either the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] or the gentleman for Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger] to offer what is in effect my amendment, to attach the 
line-item veto to the transportation appropriation bill.
  On Wednesday the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and I 
came before the House Committee on Rules with an amendment to apply the 
provisions of H.R. 2 to this bill. H.R. 2 was the line-item veto bill 
which passed the House in February with an overwhelming margin of 294 
to 134.
  I also announced my intention to offer an amendment to apply the 
line-item veto to each and every appropriation bill remaining.
  I am both pleased and amused to see that the Committee on Rules in 
direct response to my proposal has taken my idea and adopted it as 
their own. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
  During debate on this bill, I will be supporting the Solomon-Clinger 
line-item veto amendment, which is in reality the Orton-Spratt 
amendment. However, pride of authorship is not what is important here. 
Getting line-item veto back on track is the issue.
  Enactment of this amendment is not an empty exercise. We have 
embarked on this campaign because I am disturbed by the previous 
statements of the Speaker reported in the press. Some have speculated 
the demise of line-item veto is due to a reluctance of the Republican 
Congress to give this power to a Democrat President. Others ascribe 
this to an honest disagreement between the House and Senate.
  Either way, it is my strong belief that there is no reason not to 
apply line-item veto to additional
 spending bills this year.

  Madam Speaker, I strongly support the line-item veto. Last year I led 
the fight to get this bill on the floor. This year I voted for it. It 
is my belief the taxpayers should not suffer from congressional 
inaction on this issue. Every bill we pass that is not subject to line-
item veto means millions and potentially billions of dollars of 
unnecessary spending that we will not cut.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the resolution for the 
reasons stated by my colleague from California. This rule protects 
specific pork barrel projects from points of order. These are spending 
projects which have not been considered, debated, or authorized by the 
Transportation Committee and this body will not have the opportunity to 
eliminate them from this appropriation bill.
  Does it seem hypocritical to anyone to adopt a rule which protects 
specific pork barrel projects and in the same rule allow an amendment 
to provide the President with line-item veto authority to veto those 
same pork barrel projects? Where is the reponsibility in such a rule? 
Wo unto the credibility of the Congress if we adopt this rule to 
protect our pork and then rely on the President to make us responsible 
by vetoing line items of pork from this legislation.
  While I oppose this rule, I do support the amendment to apply line-
item veto to this legislation. In past weeks I have become very 
concerned over the delay in adoption of the line-item veto. On June 7, 
1995, in a Washington Times article entitled ``GOP Puts Line-Item Veto 
on Slow Track,'' Chairman Solomon is quoted as saying, ``Perhaps the 
best thing is to wait until fall when the budget is finished. There is 
no sense in going through with it now.'' Then on July 13, 1995, in the 
Washington Times article entitled, ``Line Item Veto, Product Liability 
Issues Bite the Dust:'' Speaker Gingrich is quoted as saying, ``My 
sense is that we won't get to it this year.''
  Madam Speaker, I commend the Rules Committee for allowing either 
Representative Solomon or Clinger to offer what is in effect my 
amendment to attach line-item veto to the Transportation appropriations 
bill, H.R. 2002.
  On Wednesday, Representative John Spratt and I came before the House 
Rules Committee with an amendment to apply the provisions of H.R. 2 to 
this bill. H.R. 2 was the line-item veto bill which passed the House in 
February by an overwhelming vote of 294 to 134. I also announced my 
intention to offer an amendment to apply line-item veto to each and 
every appropriations bill remaining for consideration this fiscal year.
  I am both pleased and amused to see that the Rules Committee, in 
direct response to my proposal has taken my idea and adopted it as its 
own. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. During 
debate on this bill, I will be supporting the Solomon-Clinger line-item 
veto amendment, which is in reality the Orton-Spratt amendment. 
However, pride of authorship is not what is important here, getting 
line-item veto back on track is the issue.
  The enactment of this amendment is not an empty exercise. I have 
embarked on this campaign because I am very disturbed by recent 
statements by the Speaker and others reported in the press that line-
item veto may be dead for this year. Some have speculated that the 
demise of line-item veto is due to a reluctance of a Republican 
Congress to give this power to a Democrat President. Others ascribe 
this to an honest disagreement between the House and Senate. Either 
way, it is my strong belief that there is no reason not to apply line-
item veto to individual spending bills this year.
  Madam Speaker, I am a strong support of line-item veto. Last year, I 
led the fight to get this bill to the floor of the House. This year, I 
voted for final passage. It is my belief that the American taxpayer 
should not suffer from congressional inaction on this issue. Every bill 
we pass that is not subject to line-item veto means millions and 
potentially even billions of dollars of unnecessary spending that will 
not be cut.
  Finally, while I am pleased that the Solomon-Clinger amendment has 
been made in order, I hope that this will not be merely a one-time 
symbolic effort to express the importance of line-item veto.
  While Speaker Gingrich and Majority Leader Dole may have given up, I 
have not. And this House cannot abandon our strong bipartisan effort to 
enact line-item veto for the President of the United States, regardless 
of his or her party affiliation.
  If we are to succeed in that effort, we must put maximum pressure on 
both Houses of Congress to come to agreement. We should apply line-item 
veto individually to each and every bill we send over to the other 
House. I pledge to continue the struggle to do so, and ask for the 
support of every Member of the House in this effort.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking 
member of the authorizing committee.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Madam Speaker, I rise in very, very, very strong 
opposition to this rule and urge a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question.
  There are two reasons for my opposition. First is the substance of 
the legislation that we are dealing with. Second, because of the 
process.

                              {time}  1115

  Now, there are many areas of concern in this rule and in this 
legislation. One of the areas I would like to point out is the area of 
my concern about section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act.
  As Members know, at the request of the authorizers, the Committee on 
Rules reported out a rule that did not, did not, protect points of 
order with respect to the repeal of section 13(c) in the Department of 
Transportation appropriations bill.
  As part of that request, we had also asked that if the section 13(c) 
repealer were protected, that the rule make in order an amendment to be 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] on 13(c).
  What we have in this rule is the worst of both worlds; the 13(c) 
repealer is protected from a point of order and a reform amendment is 
not made in order.
  Madam Speaker, this rule is not fair. As Members know, a repeal of 
section 13(c) could adversely affect the jobs and lives of hundreds of 
thousands of transit workers across the country.
  As the ranking Democratic member of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure with jurisdiction over this issue, I am particularly 
opposed to the use of an appropriations bill to make such sweeping 
legislative changes affecting so many transit employees and their 
families in so many cities.
  An issue of this magnitude should move through the normal legislative 
process with hearing, markup, and consequent floor action spearheaded 
by the authorizing committee and not tucked away in the deep recesses 
of an appropriations bill.
  This problem is further compounded by failing to make in order a 
reform amendment that could have been offered and should have been 
offered by my colleague from Texas, Mr. Coleman, relative to 13(c).
  Mr. COLEMAN. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINETA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Madam Speaker, that is just the one point I wanted to 

[[Page H7392]]
  make. When the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] stood up and said 
they can offer a motion to strike it, there are a lot of Members on 
both sides of the aisle that think there is a middle ground, that we do 
not have to do an either/or; we either have the 13(c) or we do not.
  A lot of us, including the Secretary of Labor, including, by the way, 
the promulgation of rules that was announced on June 30th, agree that 
there ought to be a middle ground by which we can get reform of 13(c); 
not an either/or, take-it-or-leave-it like the gentlewoman's amendment 
to the rule causes us to do.
  Madam Speaker, I am just going to say, the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from Utah precludes us from that middle ground. We cannot 
offer it.
  Mr. MINETA. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is only fair that 
if a provision repealing a program is protected, that we be given an 
opportunity to offer an amendment which would reform the program, as 
our colleague from Texas has just indicated, and make its repeal 
unnecessary, especially when such a reform amendment almost prevailed, 
almost prevailed, at the Committee on Appropriations by a 2-vote 
margin.
  Now, the second reason I am in opposition, the process is outrageous, 
because what we have is the ability to file a rule, let it lay 
overnight so that Members are able to see what the rule is. But in this 
instance, they filed a rule and now by stealth have an amendment coming 
to us to amend the rules.
  Now, which amendment are we going to talk about? The 1 a.m. Waldholtz 
amendment of July 21, or are we talking about the 10 a.m. July 21 
amendment? To me, this is outrageous that this kind of process is 
taking place with the use of the Committee on Rules to abrogate the 
legislative process.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me respond to the concerns expressed first on the 
line-item veto amendment. When the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] and 
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] came to the Committee on 
Rules, we agreed that this was an appropriate time for this House to 
reaffirm publicly its support of the line-item veto that was passed by 
this House on February 6.
  But I need to point out that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Utah [Mr. Orton] was not the same text as passed by the House on 
February 6. The Orton amendment did not include authority for the 
President to veto targeted tax benefits. Those are special tax 
provisions intended to benefit 100 people or less.
  The amendment in order under the bill, however, consisting of the 
text of H.R. 2 itself, was already agreed upon and voted on and 
supported by this House in February. Making the amendment in order 
under the rule allows the House the opportunity to once again express 
our support, with the identical text, including line-item veto for 
these targeted tax benefits.
  Addressing once again the 13(c), let me stress, Madam Speaker, that 
the way the rule is now constructed allows us to vote on repeal of 
13(c) and allows those who want to continue this program to move to 
strike. We will have an opportunity to vote on whether or not this 
program should continue. If there is sufficient sentiment in this House 
that this program should continue, then we can go through a process of 
debate and consideration of necessary reforms through the authorization 
process. But we believe it is appropriate first to find out whether 
there is enough support in this House for the continuation of this 
program.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. 
Waldholtz] for yielding, especially since she knows I rise in 
opposition to this rule.
  The reason I am opposed is because once again the lockbox is not 
included. However, I would like to say to the gentlewoman, and to the 
other Republican and Democratic members of the Committee on Rules, how 
pleased I was that yesterday, finally, a lockbox bill was reported with 
bipartisan support. Now the question is when will the House consider 
it?
  This is the lockbox. It is still empty. We have disposed of five 
appropriations bills. We will dispose of the agriculture bill later 
today. That is six. Now we are considering a rule for the 
transportation bill that excludes a lockbox amendment.
  We have made over $200 million in cuts so far this year; cuts which 
will not go to deficit reduction. I know the gentlewoman from Utah 
joins me, as do many of our other colleagues, in feeling that it is far 
past time to have the lockbox enacted into law. Let us do it quickly 
and let us get on with reducing the deficit, which the American people 
demand.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the Democratic whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, let me if I could put this debate, as it 
revolves around 13(c), into some perspective. The radical, extreme 
leadership on the Republican side of the aisle has decided, once again, 
that it will engage in class warfare against working people in this 
country.
  Since 1979, 98 percent of all new income in America was generated by 
the top 20 percent of America. The other 80 percent stayed even or fell 
below what they were receiving. The largest employer in America today 
is not IBM or GM; it is temporary manpower services. The difference 
between what the average CEO in America makes and the average worker is 
150 times more in salary; the average CEO makes 150 times more.
  What we have here in this rule is an attempt to shut out literally 
tens of thousands of transit workers across this country from engaging 
in collective bargaining, a further erosion of the right of working 
people in this country to bargain for a fair day's work.
  Madam Speaker, we may think that we are in a third wave. I think we 
have missed a wave, quite frankly, Madam Speaker. But the work of this 
country is still done by people who pack a lunch, who punch a clock, 
and who pour their heart and soul into work every single day and these 
transit workers are a part of what makes America go and work.
  We, on our side of the aisle, feel aggrieved by the fact that we are 
not getting a chance to engage in this debate. I encourage my 
colleagues, in conclusion, Madam Speaker, to vote against the previous 
question so we could have a chance for the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Coleman] to offer his reforms and we can protect working people in this 
country.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson], a member of the Committee on Rules, for 
yielding time to me.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to urge a ``no'' vote when the previous 
question is ordered.
  On Wednesday, correctly recognizing that it is not appropriate under 
House rules to allow legislation on an appropriations bill, the Rules 
Committee issued a rule to govern the Transportation appropriations 
bill that would not have protected from a point-of-order a provision 
repealing section 13(c) of the Transit Act.
  This provision of law basically insures the collective bargaining 
rights of over 200,000 transit workers in this country.
  On Thursday, however, the same Rules Committee issued an amendment to 
that rule, an amendment which now protects the section 13(c) repeal 
language from a point of order.
  Now, Madam Speaker, this business of issuing amendments to rules is a 
relatively new tactic under which all kinds of mischief can be 
employed. Indeed, even now, most Members probably have only an inkling 
as to what this amendment includes.
  Be that as it may, today I am urging a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question so that we will be in the position to offer an alternative 
rule that would make in order a compromise on the section 13(c) issue. 

[[Page H7393]]

  Indeed, during the Rules Committee hearing, Ron Coleman, Norm Mineta, 
and I urged that the section 13(c) repealer not be protected from a 
point of order. Short of that, however, in the event the rule protected 
this provision, we asked that a compromise amendment to be offered by 
Ron Coleman be made in order.
  As I already noted, the original rule accommodated our initial 
request. The subsequent amendment completely closes us out.
  And so, it is only by defeating the previous question that we will 
have a chance to offer our amendment.
  Make no mistake about it. This is an extremely important matter, both 
substantively and procedurally.
  Substantively, the provision repealing section 13(c) included in the 
bill would sell transit workers across this Nation into slavery.
  In one fell swoop, this provision not only repeals a major item in 
transit law, but runs roughshod over existing collective bargaining 
agreements.
  And this should not be allowed to happen as an amendment to an 
appropriation bill.
  Procedurally, the issue involves fairness, and whether we are now 
going to allow debate governing major legislation to be dictated by 
amendments to rules issued in the middle of the night.
  Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENDENDEZ. Madam Speaker, it is said the devil is in the details 
and the Transportation appropriations bill has the handiwork of the 
devil all over it. Today we see the majority's vision for America in 
its devilish detail. It has a single theme, take from the needy and 
give to the greedy.
  This is a singularly bad bill. The Rules Committee knows this, but 
the majority leadership is so intent on union busting that they have to 
amend their own rules. Talk to the Parliamentarians. See how rarely 
this procedure has been done in the last 60 years. The legislating on 
this appropriations bill cannot withstand the scrutiny of the normal 
legislative process so the Republican leadership has to resort to 
stunts to pass their hidden agendas.
  Why are the Republicans so afraid to step forward and say what they 
intend to do? Tell America the Republicans want to break up unions and 
drive down wages. Level with the American people that labor is not as 
important as capital to the Republican Party. That the contributions 
from road builders and developers are more important for Republicans 
than the average Joe being able to take the bus or subway to work in 
the morning. This is a bad bill. Reject the stunts to stifle debate. 
Vote no on moving the previous question on the rule. Send this horrible 
bill back and tell the Rules Committee to start over.
  Vote against the previous question on the Transportation 
appropriation bill, and return control of the rule to those who would:
  First, allow the Department of Labor and the authorizing committees 
to determine major labor laws--this includes section 13(c) collective 
bargaining rights.
  Second, as a member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, preserve mass transit projects in Ohio, Kentucky, 
Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana, California, Missouri, Puerto 
Rico, New York, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
  Third, preserve the integrity of the deliberative process of the 
House of Representatives.
  Vote against the previous question on H.R. 2002.
                              {time}  1130

  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the chairman of the Transportation 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I am not an 
expert on drafting rules. Frankly, if I were on the Committee on Rules, 
I would have limited every amendment to 10 minutes on each side.
  I think the schedule of this place is totally and completely out of 
control. All of us are going to be successful in the House, and we are 
going to fail in our own homes. So I have problems with the Committee 
on Rules. I think you all are too lenient and you ought to get control 
of the process so men and women who serve in this body can go home.
  Let me talk about the two issues, though, that have come up. The last 
gentleman spoke. He talked about, and I see him sitting back here, 
about there is antilabor. It really is not antilabor.
  I come from a labor background. My dad helped start the Fraternal 
Order of Police in Philadelphia. I come from blue-collar background. It 
is not that way.
  Let me tell what we are trying to do--13(c) has basically driven up 
the cost of transit riding. We are trying to get control.
  Let me give you an example for Washington, DC. I hope everyone will 
listen to this. In Washington, DC, the bus drivers make $46,000 a year 
after 3 years. They make more money than the teachers in the inner 
city. My daughter, Virginia, taught in the District of Columbia and 
made about $26,000 a year teaching and as you drive up those costs, 
what you fundamentally do is you make riding to work more expensive.
  Let me give you another example here in the Washington metro area. A 
single parent living in Vienna drives his or her car to Vienna, pays 
$2-something to park, had to drop their children at a day care center, 
then spends $3.25 to come into this inner city, $3.25 to go out. That 
is $8 or $9 a day. A single parent just cannot do that.
  And so this is a protransit rider thing, and I have told the bus 
drivers in my area, many of whom I represent, that I want to save their 
jobs because what has actually happened in 7 years, if something like 
this is not done, there will not be any Metro bus drivers in the 
Washington, DC, area because in Virginia and Maryland, where the 
gentlewoman chairing this and I come from, they are doing away with 
Metro drivers. They are going to DART and Ride On. You have buses 
crossing in the morning, one making $27,000, $28,000, $29,000, $30,000, 
the other making $46,000.
  We also have bus drivers that are making in the range of $50,000 and 
$60,000.
  So I want moms and dads and people to be able to use mass transit.
  Second, I say to gentleman, I am pro mass transit. I want to keep the 
operating subsidies up. I do not necessarily agree with everybody in my 
party. I hope over the years we can keep operating subsidies up.
  Third, what we did, and nobody has talked about it, I was in the 
committee and we were voting, is we allow for the first time under this 
for transits to be using their operating subsidy, their capital 
subsidies, to have bus overhauls.
  Who is for this 13(c) repeal? Everybody can get up and offer an 
amendment. What was going to happen, it was going to be basically cheap 
grace. It could have been knocked out on a point of order.
  Now we can have a battle. We may lose or we may win, but who are the 
people that are for the repeal? The Birmingham Metro Express, the 
Little Rock,
 AR, Central Transit, Los Angeles County Metro Transportation 
Authority, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the Oceanside North 
County transit district, the Orange County Transportation Authority, 
there are more, Greater Bridgeport Transit District, Greater New Haven 
Transit District, Metro in Washington, DC, in Clearwater, Sun Coast 
Transit Authority, in Illinois the Chicago Regional Transit Authority, 
in Indianapolis, the city of Indianapolis, South Bend Public Transit 
Authority, in Nevada, the Regional Transportation Commission, in New 
Jersey, the Department of Transportation, in Newark, New Jersey 
Transit, in New York City, the Department of Transportation, in New 
York City, the Metropolitan Transit Protection Authority, in Buffalo, 
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, in Ohio, the Department of 
Transportation, in Pennsylvania, Lehigh and Northampton Transportation 
Authority, Pennsylvania Association of Municipal Transportation, and 
SEPTA, where I come from, SEPTA in Philadelphia, I used to ride 

[[Page H7394]]
the 36 trolley car in the old PTC to work every day.

  This is honest to goodness, and I know there are differences, but 
this is honestly a protransit vote, and I am not out to hurt the other 
issue.
  When the two things were not protected, the one for the two transits, 
I would have like to have seen them treated the same way as the other 
transits. I would have felt, quite frankly, guilty on the floor except 
for the fact one is the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], and the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], and the other is the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Mascara].
  Since they are both Democratic Members, I do not feel so bad. We try 
to do something for a Republican Member: Had it been a Republican 
Member, quite frankly, I would have felt guilty about the rule.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Speaker, will he yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Let me just say in some respects we are together, in 
some respects we are apart. My point is simply this: I say the reform 
of 13(c), and I think even the transit unions recognize that the way to 
do it is not through this process. It is through the authorizing 
committee. I think that is where the determination should be made, not 
unilaterally striking down the rights of collective bargaining for 
these people.
  Second, I believe the gentleman when he says he is protransit, and I 
want to have a transit vote, too, very important to my district, but we 
are cutting already $310 million for mass transit subsidies. That is 
not protransit.
  Mr. WOLF. We have done others. I have told transit people, go see 
Senator Hatfield. I will be glad to work; if you get more in the 
Senate, I will be very, very sympathetic.
  Third, you have a chance to go to your committee. This is what APTA 
said about the reform bill; APTA said on July 29, after the Department 
of Labor issued the first proposed rule in more than a decade. The DOL 
guidelines have now been reviewed by APTA's working group with lawyers 
who regularly deal with 13(c) issues on behalf of transits. They have 
concluded the Department of Labor's proposal would bring no substantive 
changes to the existing 13(c) process. Proposed procedural changes have 
significant loopholes as to render them meaningless.
  I would hope, after we do this, the authorizers would take it and go 
reform it or repeal it. This is their chance. This is their chance, 
honestly, I believe, to have a vote on this. There will be a vote for 
lower transit costs for working people and anyone else who uses 
transit.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
  Mr. HASTERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and I certainly 
thank the folks in the Committee on Rules for giving me a little time.
  This is a commonsense approach I think we ought to take. There are 
reasons why we try make these changes.
  Let me relate to you a conversation I had with the mayor of Chicago. 
The mayor of Chicago, a large city, very much dependent on mass 
transit, was telling me that the city created an industrial park in the 
middle of the city. They have cleared out some of the old industrial 
buildings, built new-type industrial buildings that would fit the needs 
of the city, but the only thing is the shift change comes in at 2 
o'clock in the morning. Now, all of a sudden, there are 40, 50, 60 
people that need a ride at 2 o'clock in the morning. The contract with 
the union bus system says, as to the drivers, they have to keep those 
drivers on a set schedule all night long. They could not afford to do 
it, but they were prohibited from going out and contracting with a bus 
company to pick those people up and take them home at 2 o'clock in the 
morning.
  Now, there are some neighborhoods in Chicago I would not want to be 
stranded in at 2 o'clock in the morning, but yet because of the 
rigidity of this piece of legislation, there is no way out. There is no 
flexibility.
  What we are doing, whether it is the authorizing committee or here in 
the Committee on Appropriations, is trying to find a solution to a 
problem that exists, a commonsense solution. It is time to do it, and I 
would ask for the support of the rule and the support of the amendment.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
this particular rule, because it is not reform. It is not. They are 
repealing instead of reforming. I am opposed.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule.
  This effort to repeal the 13(c) labor protection program is being 
sold as a reform, but it is not reform in any sense.
  It is--plain and simple--an all-out attack: an attack on collective 
bargaining--the most basic right of working men and women; an attack on 
this Nation's 200,000 transit workers, without whom our cities would be 
gridlocked; and an attack on the procedures of Congress itself.
  This deal is an attempt to manipulate and to twist the rules of the 
House to sneak this change, though the House, under cover and without 
public input.
  Why are they doing this?
  They say they are doing it to save money and increase efficiency.
  The fact is, the people pushing this amendment are listening to only 
one side: big transit authorities. The committee listened only to 
transit managers. They did not even bother to consider the views of 
transit workers.
  Madam Speaker, transit workers are dedicated to their jobs and to the 
service of the public. They serve people in our society who have few 
transportation options--poor people who don't have cars and who need 
public transportation to get to work.
  Madam Speaker, the 13(c) program has worked well for over 30 years. 
It has protected the collective bargaining and job rights for middle-
class working people. Under 13(c), the transit industry has greatly 
expanded and improved efficiency and service. We should support this 
Nation's transit workers. We should protect collective bargaining 
rights. We should reform, not repeal section 13(c).
  Mr. BEILENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of our 
time.
  Let me say there was a nice discussion of 13(c) by the gentleman from 
Virginia. I am afraid it is indicative of what seems to happen to 
appropriation chairmen around this place. These legislative issues are 
supposed to be debated and decided by the legislative committees and 
not by the appropriations committees. They are not supposed to be stuck 
in the middle of appropriations bills, as this particular one has.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the 
previous question. If the previous question is defeated, we will offer 
an amendment to the rule which self-executes the Coleman amendment 
regarding section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act.
  Defeating the previous question will allow us to protect certain 
provisions of the bill but also allow full and fair debate of the 
provision protecting the collective bargaining rights of transit 
workers. That is the only fair and proper thing to do.
  Madam Speaker, I am including at this point in the Record the 
amendment which we shall offer. The amendment referred to follows:

  Amendment Offered by Mr. Beilenson to the Amendment Offered by Mrs. 
                    Waldholtz of Utah to H. Res. 194

       At the end of the amendment add the following new 
     instruction:
       At the end of the resolution, as proposed to be amended, 
     add the following new section:
       Sec. 3. (a) The amendment printed in subsection (b) shall 
     be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole and shall be considered as original text for the 
     purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     Points of order against provisions thereby inserted in the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are 
     waived.
       Page 53, strike line 1 through 13 and insert the following:
       Sec. 343. Subsection (b) of section 5333 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(4) The Secretary of Labor shall undertake all actions 
     necessary to certify promptly employee protective 
     arrangements under this section for the purpose of expediting 
     the release of Federal assistance under this 

[[Page H7395]]
     chapter. The Secretary of Labor, working with the Secretary of 
     Transportation, is directed to issue in final form by 
     September 30, 1995, guidelines which ensure that protective 
     arrangements with respect to a qualified application for 
     Federal assistance under this chapter are certified within 60 
     days after receipt of such application from the Department of 
     Transportation''.

  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  (Mrs. WALDHOLTZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Madam Speaker, to close this debate, let me simply 
say the Committee on Rules has tried very hard to open up the amendment 
process for all Members regardless of party affiliation in this 
Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I am inserting in the Record at this point a chart 
that will show in this Congress as of this date 72 percent of the rules 
that have been offered were open or modified open rules, whereas in the 
last Congress as of this date only 44 percent of the rules were open or 
modified.
  Madam Speaker, we are trying to keep this amendment process open, and 
this rule accomplishes that. The Committee on Rules is trying to 
facilitate discussion of as many issues on the floor of this House as 
possible, and so this rule reflects the use of the guideline that 
provides customary necessary waivers where agreement has been reached 
between the responsible authorizers and appropriators.
  This rule is no different in that regard. This rule does not 
guarantee the outcome of any particular process in this bill, but it 
does guarantee discussion on items that, without these waivers, would 
not be able to be brought to the floor of this House.
  On 13(c), there is a motion to strike in order, and so if those who 
want to reform rather than repeal the program have sufficient strength 
to carry the day on this particular item, then we can go through the 
reform process in the authorizing process.
  The point is, Madam Speaker, this is a rule that will allow us to 
consider critical funding issues for the transportation and 
infrastructure needs of our Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                              [As of July 20, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open\2\...............                 46                 44                 36                 72
Modified Closed\3\..................                 49                 47                 12                 24
Closed\4\...........................                  9                  9                  2                  4
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 50                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or 
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A       
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only 
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the      
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                              [As of July 20, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/13/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: voice vote (2/22/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/2/95)
 95).                                                              Protection Act.                              
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95)               
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)  Debate..............  H.R. 956............  Product Liability Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95)      
H. Res. 115 (3/14/    MO..................  H.R. 1159...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
 95).                                                              Approps..                  95)               
H. Res. 116 (3/15/    MC..................  H.J. Res. 73........  Term Limits Const. Amdt..  A: voice vote (3/28/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 117 (3/16/    Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
 95).                                                              Act of 1995.               95)               
H. Res. 119 (3/21/    MC..................  ....................  .........................  A: 217-211 (3/22/  
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1271...........  Family Privacy Protection  A: 423-1 (4/4/95)  
                                                                   Act.                                         
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 660............  Older Persons Housing Act  A: voice vote (4/6/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1215...........  Contract With America Tax  A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
                                                                   Relief Act of 1995.                          
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)  MC..................  H.R. 483............  Medicare Select Expansion   A: 253-172 (4/6/  
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 655............  Hydrogen Future Act of     A: voice vote (5/2/
                                                                   1995.                      95)               
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1361...........  Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996  A: voice vote (5/9/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)  O...................  H.R. 961............  Clean Water Amendments...  A: 414-4 (5/10/95) 
H. Res. 144 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 535............  Fish Hatchery--Arkansas..  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 145 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 584............  Fish Hatchery--Iowa......  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 146 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 614............  Fish Hatchery--Minnesota.  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 149 (5/16/    MC..................  H. Con. Res. 67.....  Budget Resolution FY 1996  PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
 95).                                                                                         168 (5/17/95)     
H. Res. 155 (5/22/    MO..................  H.R. 1561...........  American Overseas          A: 233-176 (5/23/  
 95).                                                              Interests Act.             95)               
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1530...........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY      PQ: 225-191 A: 233-
                                                                   1996.                      183 (6/13/95)     
H. Res. 167 (6/15/    O...................  H.R. 1817...........  MilCon Appropriations FY   PQ: 223-180 A: 245-
 95).                                                              1996.                      155 (6/16/95)     
H. Res. 169 (6/19/    MC..................  H.R. 1854...........  Leg. Branch Approps. FY    PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
 95).                                                              1996.                      191 (6/20/95)     
H. Res. 170 (6/20/    O...................  H.R. 1868...........  For. Ops. Approps. FY      PQ: 221-178 A: 217-
 95).                                                              1996.                      175 (6/22/95)     
H. Res. 171 (6/22/    O...................  H.R. 1905...........  Energy & Water Approps.    A: voice vote (7/12/
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95)               
H. Res. 173 (6/27/    C...................  H.J. Res. 79........  Flag Constitutional        PQ: 258-170 A: 271-
 95).                                                              Amendment.                 152 (6/28/95)     
H. Res. 176 (6/28/    MC..................  H.R. 1944...........  Emer. Supp. Approps......  PQ: 236-194 A: 234-
 95).                                                                                         192 (6/29/95)     
H. Res. 185 (7/11/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 235-193 D: 192-
 95).                                                                                         238 (7/12/95)     
H. Res. 187 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 230-194 A: 229-
 95).                                                              #2.                        195 (7/13/95)     
H. Res. 188 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1976...........  Agriculture Approps. FY    PQ: 242-185 A:     
 95).                                                              1996.                      voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 190 (7/17/    O...................  H.R. 2020...........  Treasury/Postal Approps.   PQ: 232-192 A:     
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 193 (7/19/    C...................  H.J. Res. 96........  Disapproval of MFN to      A: voice vote (7/20/
 95).                                                              China.                     95)               
H. Res. 194 (7/19/    O...................  H.R. 2002...........  Transportation Approps.    ...................
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               


[[Page H7396]]

  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I join with my colleague in opposing the 
rule which protects a provision of the bill that repeals 13(c). For 
over 30 years, 13(c) has guaranteed collective bargaining rights to 
over 200,000 transit employees throughout the Nation. Changing course 
now would simply paralyze collective bargaining in transit. What that 
means in real terms is that bus drivers, trolley operators, and other 
transit workers face cuts in their wages and diminished job security. 
If you listened to opponents of 13(c) you would think we were talking 
about Donald Trump's wage and benefit demands. We are not. We are 
talking about a bus driver who may make $30,000 a year. Or a trolley 
operator fighting for a full package of health benefits.
  These workers should have the protection of the collective bargaining 
process.
  The Department of Labor, transit labor unions, and the Department of 
Transportation are taking real steps to address the issues. The 
administrative burdens and the costs of 13(c). They are working to 
reform 13(c). Let's let that process continue. I can report to you that 
the back and forth lobbying about this very issue has soured labor 
relations in Philadelphia which had been positive and productive. Let's 
defeat this rule.
   amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mrs. waldholtz

  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Madam Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. 
     Waldholtz:
       Strike all after ``Resolved,'' and insert the following:
       ``That at any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 2002) making appropriations for the Department of 
     Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order 
     against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with 
     clause 3 of rule XIII or section 401(a) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The amendment printed in section 2 of this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in 
     the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amendment, shall be 
     considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
     amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered 
     by title rather than by paragraph. Each title shall be 
     considered as read. Points of order against provisions in the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are 
     waived except as follows: beginning with the colon on page 
     20, line 14, through the citation on line 19; and page 54, 
     lines 3 through 24. Where points of order are waived against 
     part of a paragraph, points of order against a provision in 
     another part of such paragraph may be made only against such 
     provision and not against the entire paragraph. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. It shall 
     be in order at any time to consider the amendment printed in 
     part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, if offered by a Member designated in the 
     report. That amendment shall be considered as read, shall not 
     be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in
      the Committee of the Whole. The chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for 
     a recorded vote on any amendment. The chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than five 
     minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any 
     postponed question that immediately follows another vote 
     by electronic device without intervening business, 
     provided that the time for voting by electronic device on 
     the first in any series of questions shall be not less 
     than 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. The amendment considered as adopted in the House 
     and in the Committee of the Whole is as follows:
       Page 20, line 13, insert ``(subject to passage hereafter by 
     the House of a bill authorizing appropriations therefor, and 
     only in amounts provided therein)'' before the first comma.
       Page 27, line 23, insert ``(subject to passage hereafter by 
     the House of a bill authorizing appropriations therefor, and 
     only in amounts provided therein)'' before the semicolon.
       Page 27, line 25, insert ``(subject to passage hereafter by 
     the House of a bill authorizing appropriations therefor, and 
     only in amounts provided therein)'' before the semicolon.
       Page 28, line 4, insert ``(subject to passage hereafter by 
     the House of a bill authorizing appropriations therefor, and 
     only in amounts provided therein)'' before the semicolon.
       Page 28, line 6, insert ``(subject to passage hereafter by 
     the House of a bill authorizing appropriations therefor, and 
     only in amounts provided therein)'' before the semicolon.
       Page 28, line 8, insert ``(subject to passage hereafter by 
     the House of a bill authorizing appropriations therefor, and 
     only in amounts provided therein)'' before the semicolon.
       Page 28, line 22, insert ``(subject to passage hereafter by 
     the House of a bill authorizing appropriations therefor, and 
     only in amounts provided therein)'' before the semicolon.
       Page 28, line 24, insert ``(subject to passage hereafter by 
     the House of a bill authorizing appropriations therefor, and 
     only in amounts provided therein)'' before the semicolon.
       Page 29, line 4, insert ``(subject to passage hereafter by 
     the House of a bill authorizing appropriations therefor, and 
     only in amounts provided therein)'' before the semicolon.
       Page 29, line 8, insert ``(subject to passage hereafter by 
     the House of a bill authorizing appropriations therefor, and 
     only in amounts provided therein)'' before the semicolon.
       Page 29, line 24, insert ``(subject to passage hereafter by 
     the House of a bill authorizing appropriations therefor, and 
     only in amounts provided therein)'' before the semicolon.
       Page 30, line 2, insert ``(subject to passage hereafter by 
     the House of a bill authorizing appropriations therefor, and 
     only in amounts provided therein)'' before the semicolon.
       Page 30, line 4, insert ``(subject to passage hereafter by 
     the House of a bill authorizing appropriations therefor, and 
     only in amounts provided therein)'' before the semicolon.
       Page 30, line 6, insert ``(subject to passage hereafter by 
     the House of a bill authorizing appropriations therefor, and 
     only in amount provided therein)'' before the period.
       Page 48, strike lines 5 through 7.
       Page 51, strike line 14 and all that follows through line 
     22, and insert the following:
       ``Sec. 339. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     enforce the requirement that airport charges make the airport 
     as self-sustaining as possible or the prohibition against 
     revenue diversion in the Airport and Airway Improvement Act 
     of 1982 (49 USC 47107) against Hot Springs Memorial Field in 
     Hot Springs, Arkansas on the grounds of such airport's 
     failure to collect fair market rental value for the 
     facilities known as Kimery Park and Family Park: Provided, 
     That any fees collected by any person for the use of such 
     parks above those required for the operation and maintenance 
     of such parks shall be remitted to such airport: Provided 
     Further, That the Federal Aviation Administration does not 
     find that any use of, or structures on, Kimery Park and 
     Family Park are in compatible with the safe and efficient use 
     of the airport.''.

                              {time}  1145

  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Morella). The question is on ordering 
the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that 
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that she will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of passage of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 202, not voting 15, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 546]

                               YEAS--217

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen

[[Page H7397]]

     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bateman
     Brown (CA)
     Collins (MI)
     Cox
     Crane
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Gallegly
     Goodling
     Jefferson
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Torricelli
     Volkmer
     Watts (OK)

                              {time}  1211

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Dreier for, with Mr. Moakley against.

  Mr. McNULTY and Mr. McHUGH changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. METCALF changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Morella). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________