[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 120 (Monday, July 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7507-H7539]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1996

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 194 and rule XXIII, the 
Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
State of the Union for further 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, with Mr. Bereuter in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Friday, July 
21, 1995, amendment No. 10 offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Smith] had been disposed of, and title I was open for amendment at any 
point.
  Are there further amendments to title I?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
any amendment to title I and any amendments thereto be limited to 15 
minutes each, and that the time be equally divided, with the exception 
of any amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Foglietta] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, there are a 
number of vital amendments, and particularly the one relating to the 
Coast Guard, where we have quite a few speakers. If we could get 10 
minutes per 

[[Page H7508]]
side for that one, or if the Chairman would want to accept the 
amendment, of course we would not have to debate it, or if the Chairman 
would want to cede some of his time, so we could get at least 10 
minutes on our side, I would not object.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I asked unanimous consent that all debate on 
any amendments to title I and any amendments thereto be limited to 15 
minutes each and that the time be equally divided, with the exception 
of any amendment offered by the Coast Guard, one for the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta] and the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon], and that the Coast Guard amendment be limited 
to 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side.
  Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
                 amendments offered by mr. latouretten

  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, amendments 
numbered 24 and 25, and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered 
en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. COLEMAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, the only 
amendment I have in front of me is one that dealt with $6 million and 
an additional $6 million at one place in the bill. Is the gentleman 
offering a second amendment at the same time?
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Number 25 has 
restrictive language. The reason for the en bloc request is it should 
be considered at the end of the bill as restrictive language indicating 
that the Coast Guard cannot spend the funds within the bill for the 
purpose of closing or downsizing small boat stations.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I object, and I will give the reason why, 
if I could continue to speak under my reservation of objection.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem with the second amendment is that it 
therefore totally eliminates any funds being made available to close, 
consolidate, realign, or reduce any Coast Guard small boat station, as 
I understand it.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. That is correct.
                              {time}  1800

  Mr. COLEMAN. The first amendment, on the other hand, deals with a 
reduction from the Secretary's office, I believe, of $6 million and 
adding that amount to the Coast Guard; is that right?
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. That would be correct.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Let me just say to the gentleman, I think his second 
amendment may indeed affect some of the other pending amendments with 
respect to the Coast Guard closure of stations. For that reason, I 
would ask the gentleman to not offer them en bloc but, rather, go ahead 
and offer them separately.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. If the gentleman would yield further under his 
reservation, if the gentleman is referring to the potential DeFazio 
amendment, I believe, which deals with the same issue, I believe that 
his amendment will not be forthcoming and he is as a matter of fact the 
principal cosponsor of this particular block of amendments.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Let me again, however, suggest that it is for that 
reason that I think and because we may need some additional time on 
debate for that second amendment, that I would object to their being 
considered en bloc and would ask the gentleman to offer his first 
amendment first, we dispose of that, and then to go to the second one, 
again operating under the time limits to which the House has now 
agreed, time to be divided equally. I would ask the gentleman to do 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.


               amendment no. 24 offered by mr. latourette

  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. LaTourette: Page 2, line 8, 
     after the first dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.
       Page 7, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the previous order of the House, the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a 
member opposed will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette].
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This amendment when considered with the amendment that will be 
offered later in the bill deals with and revisits the question of the 
multimission small boat unit streamlining plan developed by the U.S. 
Coast Guard.
  Members may recall that during the markup and also floor 
consideration of the Coast Guard Authorization Act, a similar amendment 
at that time offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] was 
considered. While there were in fact many sympathetic Members on the 
floor, the theme of fiscal restraint and where the heck is the money 
going to come from heavily weighted on some votes.
  This amendment, together with the amendment to be offered later in 
the bill, transfers $6 million from the Secretary's O&M account to the 
Coast Guard. The second amendment would then add restrictive language 
that would protect funds in the bill to be used to close or downsize 
small boat stations.
  This is a bipartisan amendment whose principal sponsors include the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Pallone],
 and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown]. I am offering this amendment 
because it is an amendment that just makes sense.

  The U.S. Coast Guard's small boat stations save lives and greatly 
contribute to safety. They ensure a rapid response to emergency calls. 
When a small boat station is closed, safety is placed at risk.
  Like many people on the floor, I consider myself to be fiscally 
responsible and conservative and I am as committed as anyone to making 
our Government smaller, less intrusive and more accountable. I am also 
strongly in favor of balancing the budget.
  While I understand and appreciate that the Coast Guard is taking its 
streamlining program so seriously, the $6 million in savings that will 
be achieved from shutting down these stations is minuscule when you 
consider the big picture, which is overall savings of $400 million. 
What price tag do we put on maritime safety?
  We have all been told that the Coast Guard is making some remarkable 
advances in search and rescue due to new technology. Boats that used to 
travel 12 knots now travel 27. Helicopters can reach the highest of 
speeds. However, who wants to explain to the mother whose child is 
drowning that, ``Ma'am, the boat that we sent to rescue your boy was 
the fastest that we could find but it just had to travel too far to get 
there''?
  Advanced technology will not sell to the grief-stricken. Fast boats 
and fast helicopters are no consolation.
  I have the highest praise for the U.S. Coast Guard. Its service is 
second to none. In fact, just this past week the Coast Guard valiantly 
rescued a couple from Lorain, OH whose boat went vertical in a matter 
of seconds in one of Lake Erie's famous storms. For over 8 hours this 
couple clung to what was left of their boat in 66-degree water. Finally 
the storm passed, the sun came out, and a rainbow formed. The gentleman 
saw the rainbow and said to this financee, ``That is God's covenant 
with us.'' I would argue that the arrival of the Coast Guard was also 
God's covenant as the Coast Guard so often performs miracles.
  This amendment saves the stations and finds the dollars to do it. I 
ask support for the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  
[[Page H7509]]

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Its Members are listening, they should know that the House has 
already voted on this issue. It was soundly defeated 2 months ago by a 
vote of 272-146. The House has already expressed its will on this 
issue. I do not believe any significant new information has been 
received over the last 2 months to make a difference.
  If Members care about the deficit, the Coast Guard needs the 
flexibility to close the facilities they no longer need. They have 
determined that these stations are no longer needed. We should not be 
requiring the Coast Guard to keep open facilities they say they do not 
need and they do not want, especially in a time when we are cutting 
their budget and asking them to become more efficient.
  The amendment would result in a situation quite frankly unfair to 
Coast Guardsmen and their families. At some of the current units which 
the Coast Guard wants to close, Coast Guard staff are required to work 
more than 90 hours. It is kind of like being in the House of 
Representatives. Ninety hours a week these Coast Guardsmen are working. 
This jeopardizes the safety of those being rescued, and diminishes the 
quality of life of the Coast Guardsmen and their families.
  In addition, I say to the gentlemen on that side--and I do not know 
how many on this side care--the amendment would reduce the funding to 
the Office of the Secretary, which happens to be the Secretary of 
Transportation.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, we have already made deep cuts in the 
Office of the Secretary. This bill would provide $215 million, which is 
62 percent below the administration's request. Salaries and expenses 
are reduced by 12 percent. These are severe reductions and would be 
made even worse.
  The amendment is opposed again by the Coast Guard. It is opposed by 
the Secretary of Transportation. It is opposed by the chairman of the 
Coast Guard authorizing subcommittee. We have already voted against 
this issue overwhelmingly by a vote of 272-146. It will be interesting 
to see if anyone switches their vote. Mr. Chairman, because there have 
been no issues that have changed at all.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
LaTourette] to support his amendment. The amendment transfers $6 
million from the Office of the Secretary of Transportation to the Coast 
Guard.
  It is budget neutral. Those of us that are budget-cutters on this 
floor, that have been willing to vote to kill the super collider, kill 
the space station or make budget cuts across the board, understand that 
this is budget neutral, takes money from one part of the Department of 
Transportation and puts money in the Coast Guard.
  This amendment is about public safety. As we talk about police on the 
streets, we talk about making sure that the Coast Guard is there to 
provide the kind of public safety and public service that people that 
live on lakes and oceans and waterways in this country have come to 
expect.
  The Coast Guard, because it is about public safety, has rescued 
people that are drowning. It has rescued people in fires. It has 
rescued children that fall through the ice in places like the Great 
Lakes.
  The Coast Guard does drug interdiction, it enforces environmental and 
fishing laws, and the Coast Guard enforces and looks out for boat 
safety. Whether it is speeding through a harbor in Lorain or in 
Ashtabula, whether it is alcohol problems from boat operators, the 
Coast Guard is there to enforce those kind of safety regulations.
  There is nothing more important than public safety. It is important 
that we recognize that in the Coast Guard, that this funding, budget 
neutral, be transferred so that the money is there to keep the Coast 
Guard operating at full force.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  This amendment prevents the closure, consolidation, realignment, or 
reduction of any Coast Guard search and rescue station in fiscal year 
1996. A similar amendment was defeated in the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee and on the House floor during debate of the 
Coast Guard authorizing bill. All of those who voted to defeat this 
amendment before should do so again today.
  The Coast Guard must have the management flexibility to respond to 
changing search and rescue needs. The population needs and demographics 
which led to the initial placement of these Coast Guard stations has 
changed. Further, the technology regarding search and rescue missions 
has changed to allow a single station to cover greater areas than 
before.
  Many search and rescue stations were established over 100 years ago 
when rowboats were used to conduct rescues. Certainly, we must allow 
the Coast Guard the necessary flexibility to change their operations to 
reflect both the changes in population needs and technological 
advances.
  The GAO has endorsed the process used by the Coast Guard to evaluate 
these changes. Further, the authorizing legislation passed by the House 
requires the Secretary of Transportation to determine that safety will 
not be diminished before any station can be closed.
  While I realize it may seem difficult to those living near and under 
the close protection of a search and rescue station to watch that 
station be closed and for that same protection to come from a station 
of greater distance. But I am confident that all the necessary safety 
considerations have been taken.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not the same amendment that we voted on during 
the authorization. This deals both with small boat closures, small boat 
lifesaving closures, and the consolidation issues. It is paid for. It 
is budget neutral, which the Traficant amendment during the 
consideration of the authorization was not.
  This whole attempt on the part of the Coast Guard to jam through 
these closures is going to cost lives around the country. It is not 
well thought out. They told us they took into account the cold water 
conditions of the Pacific Northwest. All those things were in the 
parameters.
  No, they were not. When I asked for the data, in fact there were 
strangely some stations that met the parameters for closure but somehow 
fell off the final list. But mine were still on, as were others around 
the country. It is some politics going on here, folks. Politics are 
going to cost lives.
  They said, ``Well, don't worry. Whenever we downsize or close 
something, we'll put people at adjacent stations.'' I have a 200-mile 
section of coast where every Coast Guard station is being reduced or 
closed. Oregonians are going to drown.
  It happened in 1988 when the Bush administration closed those small 
boat stations. We had three deaths within a month. People are going to 
drown. You cannot tread water for 40 minutes in the North Pacific and 
live to wait for the rescue helicopter. We will pick up corpses with 
the rescue helicopters, not living citizens.
  Vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Save lives and cut bureaucracy.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Coleman], the ranking member.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I 
really may not need that much time, and I will be happy to yield it 
back to the gentleman from Virginia if I do not use it all.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all let me say the issue itself that the Coast 
Guard brought before the committee concerning downsizing and efficiency 
of operation, I think they made their case in front of the committee, 
the Subcommittee on Transportation of the 

[[Page H7510]]
Committee on Appropriations, that indeed this was a cost-cutting, 
appropriate thing to do. That is the reason that my colleague got the 
10 minutes in order to be opposed to this particular amendment.
  Let me give one of the problems that I have with the amendment and 
the reason I asked for it to be divided. It was not only the fact which 
I thought we can make and still believe we can make into a very valid 
debate--and maybe we can write legislation here on the floor, which 
many of us think is not a good idea--that indeed some of us believe the 
authorizing committee should certainly have something to say about 
whether or not the Coast Guard keeps these open or not.
  I am not an expert in this area at all, and will readily admit that. 
The testimony I heard indicated that it was appropriate, but we did not 
hear from many people who live along these coastlines. I think it would 
have been appropriate to us to have done so.
  Let me also say that the problem with offering an amendment in this 
fashion also is that they had to find $6 million from somewhere. Well, 
where? Everyone says, ``Let's go to the Office of the Secretary because 
there's some money there.''
  Well, we have done that, by the way, in this bill, over and over and 
over again. It is not the first time that that has happened. In fact, 
the committee itself pretty well decimates the Office of Secretary.
  I hope all of the people understand that when you go to these places 
for money, when you call over there and expect some response to your 
congressional office, you do not plan on getting it anytime soon. 
Ultimately, when you keep making these kinds of cuts, and you demand 
information for your constituents from DOT, about the FAA or about an 
airport in your district, you are not going to necessarily get a call 
real quick back. Do not expect that as long as you continue to make 
these kinds of cuts.
  Let me point out that we cut, in this subcommittee, the Office of the 
Secretary by $2.5 million already. We are $3 million or 5.3 percent 
below the fiscal year 1995 level. The substantial reduction that is 
being proposed here of an additional $6 million once again would put us 
15 percent below the 1995 level.
                              {time}  1815

  Well, they can eat that; right? With no harm? Well, I begin to 
question that, ultimately, if my colleagues do not listen to the 
testimony that we listened to.
  I know many of my colleagues who are not on Appropriations think that 
we just have these numbers and they are nebulous and do not count. We 
find out how many people they actually have working in these offices. 
How far-flung is the Secretary of Transportation's office? Well, pretty 
good size. It has within it the Coast Guard. It has within it the 
Federal Highway Administration. It has within it the Federal Aviation 
Administration.
  So I simply say to my colleagues that before we start making these 
kinds of cuts, if we really want to take this amount of money, let us 
find it someplace where we can all have a serious debate about the 
proper location for finding these dollars.
  Those of us who represent districts that have a good deal of concern 
with mass transit or with buses, certainly with highways, we intend to 
get responses from the Department. We have questions and things change, 
conditions change where we intend to lay down future transit 
operations, we expect the Department of Transportation to respond; do 
we not?
  Well, they are not going to be able to if we continue to make these 
kinds of cuts, and it is for that reason I asked that the question be 
divided or that the gentleman not be permitted to offer the amendments 
en bloc.
  Do not take the $6 million out of here. Even if we pass the second 
amendment, I would say to my colleagues in the House, we can then 
determine where we find the dollars so that the Coast Guard would have 
the amount of money to keep open the stations.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to stress that my colleagues 
and I have spent a lot of time over the last 6 months looking into this 
issue and our concern is over human lives. We know and we can document 
that people's lives can be lost if this amendment is not passed.
  What is happening, by closing small boat stations, we are creating 
great distances between the stations and increasing the Coast Guard's 
response time and basically making it impossible for the Coast Guard to 
be successful in responding to life-threatening situations.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about $6 million for something like 23 
stations and even more that are going to be downsized. It seems to me 
that $6 million is simply so small an amount of money to talk about a 
few lives that are going to be saved by passing this amendment, that it 
really is almost unconscionable for us to worry about that $6 million 
when we are talking about human lives.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, if any Member of Congress is interested in 
boating safety, this is the amendment for them.
  Mr. Chairman, I can tell my colleagues from personal experience in 
Dorr County, WI, that our Coast Guard has saved many a life. Washington 
Island Station is located in an extremely popular tourist area of Dorr 
County. This scenic peninsula juts out into Lake Michigan and attracts 
a very high level of boat traffic. It has over 80 miles of coastline, 
more coastline than any county in the United States, and that is why 
the Coast Guard has just renovated the Washington Island Station at a 
cost of some half a million dollars.
  Now they come along and they say they want to close it. Well, in the 
last year, the Coast Guard rescued four injured people. The Coast Guard 
says, well, the other stations can respond in an emergency within 30 
minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, waiting for 30 minutes for a pizza may be all right, 
but it certainly is not all right if you are on a stranded boat or in a 
capsized boat, and that is why I think this amendment is so important.
  I have people from all over the area who have
   written me. Here is a person who knows what is going on, Doc 
Randley. He says, ``Emergencies and disasters happen; without the Coast 
Guard, people will be in peril.''

  Here is another person that writes, R. J. Hartman, and he said, 
``Will you please explain to me why the U.S. Coast Guard was allowed to 
spend $400,000 to $500,000 of taxpayers' money, only to terminate the 
facility 4 months later.''
  Mr. Chairman, this is not good planning. The amendment before us 
corrects the situation, and I ask my colleagues to vote for this 
amendment.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in passionate support of this 
amendment. While I regret the possibility of a delay in information 
from the Secretary of the Interior, I even more deeply regret the delay 
in the arrival of the Coast Guard in response to an SOS.
  We are told not to worry, that there is going to be 2 hours response 
time uniformly around the country. Let me just suggest that if one of 
us has the misfortune of being in the water in the winter, we damn well 
better be in Florida and not in the northwest Atlantic off New England, 
because 2 hours is absolutely academic; it is long.
  We will be able to put a dollar value on human life, Mr. Chairman, if 
this amendment is rejected, because 2 or 3 years from now we will be 
able to tell exactly how many lives were lost that otherwise would have 
been saved, divide by $6 million, and at long last we will have an 
answer to the question: What is a human life worth? For God's sake, 
support this amendment.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Maine [Mr. Baldacci].
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, there were tragedies in Maine when, in 
1990, the Coast Guard station temporarily closed down in Eastport, ME. 
It closed down for approximately 14 months and during that time, two 
people drowned. This tragedy was a terrible blow to the community. If 
the station had been operational, there is a possibility that those 
lives could have been saved.

[[Page H7511]]

  Mr. Chairman, I know the appropriations and the budget process have 
to come together, but when we are talking about human lives, and in 
Eastport, ME, there were two lives that were drowned because of the 
lack of that station. This is the documentation for me.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment ought to be defeated, because if Members 
remember how they voted last time, just 2 months ago, they voted to 
defeat the amendment then.
  Second, if we cannot do this, then frankly we have to fold up our 
tents and say we are never going to deal with our deficit, because this 
is a closure that is supported by the Coast Guard. It is also supported 
by the authorizing committee, which has looked into this.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] says the Secretary of 
Transportation's office has already been decimated. So as we vote, I 
think it is a good clear vote. The Coast Guard needs the flexibility. 
They oppose the amendment. It is opposed by the Coast Guard authorizing 
committee. It would destroy the whole deficit reduction program.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
                   amendment offered by mr. foglietta

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Foglietta: Page 14, line 7, strike 
     ``$60,000,000'' and insert ``$195,000,000''.
       Page 25, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $135,000,000)''.
       Page 25, line 25, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $135,000,000)''.
       Page 26, line 3, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $135,000,000)''.

  Mr. FOGLIETTA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment, and all amendments thereto, close in 20 minutes for 
each side. I was thinking 20 minutes total. But if the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Coleman] would like, 15 minutes each side for a total of 30 
minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, just so the 
majority and the minority can, in fact, do this on the amendments that 
may take a bit of time, I would ask the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf] if he would consider amending his unanimous-consent request so 
that it be divided for 10 minutes for the author, 10 minutes for the 
minority side, and 10 minutes for the majority side on the issue.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, I am.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the author be 
given 10 minutes, 10 minutes for the ranking minority member and 10 
minutes for the majority.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman ask if I supported the 
amendment?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I asked if the gentleman opposed the 
amendment.
  Mr. COLEMAN. No, I support the amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, then I do not think that would be fair. I 
think we ought to go 20 and 20.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, that would be fine.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] 
will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise with my colleague, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], to offer a bipartisan amendment to keep our 
Nation's buses, trolleys, and subways on track. I ask my colleagues 
this: What does a pipefitter in South Philadelphia have in common with 
an elderly couple in Davenport, IA, or with a mother trying to get off 
welfare in Parkersburg, WV?
  Mr. Chairman, what they have in common is that they all depend on 
mass transportation. A subway takes the pipefitter to his job in the 
Philadelphia Navy Yard. A Dial-a-Van takes the elderly couple in Iowa 
to visit the doctor and a bus gets the welfare mother to her first job 
in Parkersburg. Mass transit is more than just metal and rubber on 
buses; it is more than just subway cars and vans; it is an investment 
in people and in self-sufficiency.
  Mr. Chairman, it is shortsighted and wrongheaded policy to back away 
from Federal support of mass transportation, because what will happen 
if the committee cut in transit assistance happens? In Philadelphia, 
the transit fare, the second most costly fare in America, may increase 
by 3 percent or service will be drastically cut.
  The van fare in Davenport will increase by 150 percent. A ride on one 
of Parkersburg's seven buses will increase by 135 percent. Transit is a 
priority all across America; in big cities, small towns and suburbs, 
and farm country.
  I recognize the difficulties my chairman, the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Wolf], faced in putting together this bill. These are tough budget 
times. We are all trying to do more with much less. Transportation is 
no different, but unfortunately, equity was not achieved. The Federal 
highway program gained an $800 million windfall, while mass transit 
took 60 percent of the reductions in this bill. Transit operating 
assistance was slashed by 44 percent. Across the country, fares will go 
up and services will be cut.
  With the reduction in operating assistance contained in this bill, it 
is estimated that in 43 small cities and towns across the country 
transit service will cease to exist. Transit services could end in 
Mansfield, OH; Greeley, CO; Nashua, NH; Yakima, WA; Muskegon, MI; 
Amarillo, TX; and Iowa City, IA. The list goes on and on.
  Mr. Chairman, who will be the victims? In many smaller towns, the 
victims will be senior citizens; the same senior citizens who will 
receive dramatic increases in their Medicare. Our amendment restores a 
modest $135 million for transit operating assistance. It rescinds $135 
million from the FAA's facility and equipment unobligated balances. The 
FAA has $178 billion unobligated in this account.
                              {time}  1830

  My chairman has already taken back $60 million from this balance in 
the bill. Some funds have been idle since 1991.
  We need to make a small proportion of this money work for us right 
now. It still will be, if we take this money out, $1.58 billion in this 
account, and in fiscal year 1996, we will be adding an additional $2 
billion.
  Later today we will also be offering a second amendment to provide 
the outlay authority to fully offset this increase in transit 
assistance.
  The second amendment would limit the obligations in highway 
demonstrations to $200 million in fiscal year 1966. We wanted to be 
true to the principles of budget discipline. That is why pork-busting 
Citizens Against Government Waste have endorsed our amendment.

[[Page H7512]]

  The administration requested elimination of highway demonstration 
project obligations in their budget request for the Department of 
Transportation. There are billions of dollars' worth of projects that 
our authorizing committee included in their bills.
  These projects are 5 to 12 years old. This is a rational way to 
control spending. But let me make one thing clear: The amendment does 
not rescind or cancel a single highway demonstration project. I repeat, 
the amendment does not kill a single highway project or reduce funding 
for these projects.
  This battle always comes down to a fight between highways and mass 
transit, but this is wrong. Transit and highways should not compete. 
They should complement each other.
  I guarantee you the drivers in your district support this amendment. 
They want people who take transit to work today to be in their cars 
tomorrow? I do not think so. Drivers and transit riders share a common 
interest.
  We have to support this shared goal by investing in transit.
  Support the Fox-Foglietta amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] opposed to 
the amendment?
  Mr. WOLF. I am opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf] for 20 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment. I think when people 
come over here to vote on this, they ought to think in terms of airline 
safety.
  There are major problems with this amendment. It takes away funds 
from ongoing projects approved by Congress and a need to revitalize the 
air traffic control system across the country. Every time Pena comes up 
here, they talk about the air traffic control system over and over and 
over. This would hurt that very, very badly. Any Member thinking in 
terms of flying has been concerned about it. It is one thing to rescind 
funds that are no longer needed for pork-barrel projects. It is another 
thing to disrupt needed, ongoing programs. That is exactly what the 
gentleman's amendment does. It cuts programs needed for radar and 
communications systems all across the country.
  The air traffic control system is falling apart. The bill before us 
today adds $90 million above, $90 million above the administration's 
request to put the system back in a good state of repair.
  The gentleman's amendment would allow the FAA to
   take most of the money we added in the bill for safety-related 
equipment away. Many of you know the disaster safety records we have 
seen over the past year in aviation. This has been one of the worst 
years in aviation.

  We need additional funding for safety systems, the terminal Doppler 
radar. You recall what happened down in Charlotte, the wind sheer alert 
system. So for that one reason alone, as many others, and I know the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] will cover it.
  I am strongly opposed to the amendment.
  The gentleman wanted to put more money into mass transit. We were 
sympathetic. Quite frankly, if you really want to help mass transit, 
when we have a vote tonight on 13(c), if you really want to help mass 
transit and lower the fares, you will also vote to eliminate the 13(c).
  This amendment is not the approach.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I believe we want to help 
mass transit. We want to help mass transit by using funds which are not 
going to be obligated this year; second, not by aiding mass transit by 
putting the aid on the backs of the working people of this country who 
work for mass transit.
  The gentleman, and I am sure rightfully, declares that he is 
concerned about traffic safety, air traffic safety. Well, the fact 
remains the chairman himself rescinded $60 million from this account.
  Now, even with your withdrawal and my withdrawal, our rescissions, we 
still have $1.58 billion in the account, and this year we are putting 
in $2 billion more.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, the committee, on page 62, strongly, 
strongly talks in terms of safety. It says--

     the Committee has placed the strongest emphasis on 
     maintaining, and improving wherever possible, transportation 
     safety around the nation. Because of significant concerns 
     over the past year regarding the state of aviation safety, 
     the Committee feels strongly that additional funding emphasis 
     should be placed on new safety-related equipment. Among other 
     things, this equipment will provide controllers, pilots, and 
     airline dispatchers a more accurate and up-to-date 
     understanding of dangerous weather conditions and provide a 
     clearer picture and automated alerting of potential conflicts 
     between aircraft maneuvering on airport surfaces.

  This amendment would not be good for aviation safety. This amendment 
would allow many of these programs to be cut, and you could talk about 
helping mass transit, which is fine, but you do not want to do it by 
taking money away from aviation safety.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the amendment my distinguished 
colleague, Tom Foglietta, and I are offering today is one of importance 
to me and to those who represent urban, suburban, and rural districts 
alike.
  One component of the Nation's transportation system, mass transit, 
will take a dramatic cut in funding as part of our overall effort to 
move toward a balanced budget. The current fiscal year 1996 
Transportation appropriations bill reduces funding for mass transit 
operating assistance from $710 million in fiscal year 1995 to $400 
million in fiscal year 1996. That's a 40 percent reduction, which will 
be devastating to the Nation's bus, subway, and light rail systems.
  This blow to mass transit comes at the same time highway funding is 
being increased by $800 million. This is unfair and wrongheaded policy. 
Highways and transit should complement each other, not compete against 
each other. Mass transit is more than metal and rubber, more than 
buses, subways and trains. It is critical to our cities, vital to the 
suburbs and a godsend to rural communities.
  For example, my constituents from Montgomery County, PA, a suburban 
district outside Philadelphia, depend on buses, subways, and light rail 
systems to carry them to work, to school, to health care providers, and 
to recreational opportunities. In fiscal year 1995, Philadelphia 
received $28 million in operating assistance. Under the proposed 
Transportation appropriations bill, funding would take a dramatic and 
unfair decrease to $15 million.
  This amendment is also about opportunity. Opportunity is a word and a 
concept that has gained great momentum on this side of the aisle and I 
know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle also appreciate our 
need to increase opportunities for all Americans. However, 
opportunities require access to be realized and mass transit provides 
that access.
  As strong proponents of mass transit, Congressman Foglietta and I 
have joined forces to restore a modest $135 million for operating 
assistance for mass transit in the fiscal year 1996 Transportation 
Appropriations bill.
  It rescinds $135 million from the FAA's facility and equipment 
unobligated balances. The FAA has $1.78 billion unobligated in this 
account and some of the funds have been idle since 1991. No one is 
looking to interrupt any safety projects, nor would this funding do so.
  Our proposed increase in the recission will still allocate $1.45 
billion to the FAA. We need to take a small portion of this money work 
for us now. Later today, we will also be offering a second amendment to 
provide the outlay authority to fully offset this increase in transit 
assistance.
  Our amendment demonstrates budget discipline. That is why we have 
received endorsement by the Citizens Against Government Waste.
  Mass transit is of vital importance across America--in big cities, 
small towns, the suburbs, and farm country. However, the funding in 
this bill would be devastating.

[[Page H7513]]

  Fares would go up, services would be cut. My colleague, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta] stated he has estimated 43 small 
cities and towns across the country, their transit service would cease, 
and in my hand, I could go into statistics about many other areas in 
the country severely impacted.
  I know my colleagues are well aware of these numbers and facts. We 
all know the value in mass transit. We need only to step forward now 
and restore fairness to overall transportation policy.
  I ask for a favorable vote for the Foglietta-Fox amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  On page 66, Members ought to look, particularly Members from the 
Philadelphia area, Philadelphia National Airport,
       Airport movement areas safety system (AMASS).--Given this 
     program's importance to aviation safety, the strong support 
     of the National Transportation Safety Board, and recent calls 
     for accelerated fielding by the FAA Safety Summit, the 
     Committee recommendation includes an additional $20,000,000 
     for AMASS systems. The reommended level includes AMASS 
     systems for airports in the following locations: 
     Philadelphia, PA; Seattle, WA; Denver, CO (2 systems); 
     Anchorage, AK; Miami, FL; Cleveland, OH; Dallas/Ft. Worth, 
     TX; San Francisco, CA; Kansas City, MO; and Memphis, TN.

  People want to ride transit. They want to ride airplanes safely. It 
would be wrong to take aviation safety money out to do this.
   Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster].
  (Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I join with the chairman of the 
Transportation Appropriation Subcommittee in strongly opposing this 
amendment.
  This amendment would cut FAA capital funding to offset transit 
subsidies. This would rescind approximately $130 million from the FAA's 
facilities and equipment account.
  What do these accounts include? These are safety accounts, safety-
crucial equipment, such as aviation radars, air traffic control 
equipment, and weather detection equipment.
  This amendment would significantly delay or even cancel the delivery 
of aviation safety equipment at hundreds of U.S. airports. This 
amendment would put the safety of air travelers at risk.
  FAA has been criticized repeatedly about its inability to develop 
equipment more quickly. Now, if this amendment passes, equipment delays 
will no longer be the FAA's fault but the fault of the Congress. If 
this amendment passes, we will not know what safety-related aviation 
equipment is going to be delayed or canceled.
  This amendment simply cuts $130 million. But it does not specify 
which safety program. It gives Congress' power over the purse away and 
hands it over to the bureaucrats down at FAA who will be the ones to 
decide whether it is your safety radar that is going to be eliminated 
and which cities should have a safety cut because of this amendment.
  Last year's aircraft accidents north of Indianapolis and in North 
Carolina tragically emphasized how important weather information is to 
aviation. This amendment could cut weather detection programs.
  The point is if this amendment passes, we will not know what programs 
will be cut. It is a blind cut. Since the majority of projects in the 
FAA's facilities and equipment account are for safety, this amendment 
will cut safety projects.
  Finally, the amendment would cut FAA facilities and equipment funds 
which are supported 100 percent by the aviation trust fund. Aviation 
users pay into this trust fund, and they expect the taxes to support 
aviation capital projects.
  The aviation taxes are not being spent now as intended, but if this 
amendment were to pass, it would further mask and distort the size of 
the deficit in that trust fund. If this amendment passes, it will 
reduce the aviation trust fund spending even further.
  I strongly oppose this amendment and join with my colleague, the 
chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], in strongly urging a ``no'' vote on 
this antisafety aviation amendment.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is we 
are dealing with unobligated funds, not safety projects as has been 
stated, and the fact also is the Department of Transportation did not 
ask for the $1.78 billion that is going to FAA.
  No safety product will be cut. The fact is, $135 million needs to go 
to save our cities, our suburbs, our rural communities, so mass transit 
can live on, be well and be safe, as well as cars and as well as our 
airways for our planes and helicopters and the air transportation.
  I think we need to talk about how all systems must work together.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  This amendment would rescind approximately $130 million from FAA's 
facilities and equipment prior year accounts.
  I oppose this amendment for three reasons.
  First, crucial safety equipment is funded by the facilities and 
equipment account such as aviation radars, air traffic control 
equipment and weather detection equipment. This reduction would keep 
FAA from delivering aviation safety equipment to hundreds of U.S. 
airports. If airports don't have the necessary safety equipment, the 
traveling public will not be properly protected.
  Second, this amendment fails to identify what projects will be 
reduced. We have no idea if radars in Missouri or landing aids in New 
York City will be cut. Under this amendment, FAA staff decides what 
programs to cut.
  Finally, this amendment would cut FAA facilities and equipment funds 
which are supported 100 percent by the aviation trust fund. Aviation 
users pay into this trust fund and expect the taxes to support aviation 
capital projects.
  I strongly oppose the Foglietta amendment and urge you to vote 
``no.''

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Coleman], the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which 
would soften what everyone here understands and knows, or should know, 
has been a severe blow to the mass transit programs. One of the deepest 
cuts in this bill is the cut recommended for transit operating subsidy, 
a reduction of $310 million or 44 percent below the current level that 
we spent in 1995. Now 44 percent cuts are pretty drastic. His amendment 
only softens the blow; it does not restore it. The cuts included will 
require deep reductions in transit services and steep increases in 
transit fares all across this country. To cut that will have a 
devastating impact on transit users throughout the Nation, but 
particularly in small urban areas and in rural communities.
  I know when we say mass transit some people think, well, a mass 
transit worker must be in a big city. Well, that is just not the case. 
Those of us in west Texas understand the importance of this section of 
the bill. According to the Federal Transit Administration, if States 
and localities do not step in and make up the difference, and my 
colleagues and I know many of them will not or cannot, 43 smaller 
communities will face fare increases of more than 100 percent, and 
their transit systems are on a precipice of folding. Fifty other 
communities will face fare increase from 50 to 100 percent, and 61 
communities could see their fare increased from 30 to 50 percent. Now 
those are data that we, the committee, has. It was made available to 
us, and yet this subcommittee went ahead and made what I consider to be 
improper and overly huge cuts.

[[Page H7514]]

  Well, I will just say to my colleagues that I think what we need to 
understand is what the Foglietta amendment does. I hear all the 
objections coming from the other side about where he goes and gets the 
money on this section of the amendment. Where he is going of course is 
he is going to capital funding accounts in the FAA, and that is 
correct, unexpended balances. How many times have we heard we cannot 
keep money out there in agencies if we are not going to spend it? Well, 
they are keeping it. This is unexpended balances. In fact, $130 million 
is a lot of money, but taken with a total unobligated--balances that 
are out there; do my colleagues know what that total is? It is $1.7 
billion, and this bill adds another $2 billion. So the $130 million out 
of the $3.7 billion in moneys to be expended is not that big a hit on 
that capital account.
  Now the reality is we all know that with this self-imposed national 
emergency that we now have on our hands in the appropriations process 
we have got to look hard to find dollars. But my colleagues and I know 
that the Foglietta amendment does not do devastation to anything.
  It is interesting to note my chairman, the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Wolf], correctly said we were not going to do highway 
demonstration projects, and he kept his word, we did not, but that does 
not mean this Congress is not doing them. This Congress is doing them, 
and that is where we ought to get to also, some facts. The bill itself, 
this bill, will permit continued spending on the 539 highway demo 
projects authorized under ISTEA which are completely exempt from any 
spending controls.
  I say to my colleagues, ``The next time you talk to a conservative in 
this place, I want you to ask him how he voted on this particular 
amendment.'' That is the issue.
  Let us all admit what we are doing here: 539 continuing highway 
demonstration projects. All the Foglietta amendment does is limit it, 
limit obligations to anything in excess of $200 million. He does not 
even cut those out. He was correct in his opening statement in telling 
everybody in this House that he was not cutting projects that are 
ongoing, he is not going to do that, it does not happen. It does not 
kill my colleagues' highway projects. What it simply says is that we 
have some spending controls with this amendment on 539 highway 
demonstration projects that this bill funds.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta] I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say the ranking member in the committee talked a lot about 
aviation safety, and then all of a sudden he is not interested in it.
  This deals with a terminal weather doppler system that, if it had 
been in effect in Charlotte, NC, the people probably would still be 
alive, and the money he is talking about taking is the money in this 
bill. It is unobligated because the bill has not passed. Once the bill 
is passed, they will obligate it; that is he way the process goes. The 
FAA cannot obligate money until we pass it, and that is what we are 
doing today. We are trying to pass the bill.
  So my colleague was interested in the committee and talking about our 
cuts with regard to the FAA. We have made cuts, but my colleague wants 
deeper cuts.
   Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Mineta].
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, the proposed rescission of $130 million 
from the facilities and equipment account of the FAA. F&E is the 
important program which provides the funds needed to develop and 
purchase the capital equipment used in the air traffic control system. 
Much of this equipment development will enhance the safety of the 
system and save lives. I have in mind such projects as Terminal Doppler 
Weather Radar, which will improve our ability to detect hazardous 
windshear, and airport surface detection equipment which will help 
avoid collisions while aircraft are moving around the airport. The F&E 
account also supports FAA's extensive program to modernize the air 
traffic control system, which now relies on equipment which is several 
generations behind the current state-of-the-art in technology, and 
which is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain.
  All of the funds for the FAA's F&E program are taken from the Airport 
and Airway Trust Fund, which is wholly supported by taxes paid by the 
users of the aviation system. The users are entitled to have us respect 
the promises made when these taxes were imposed, that the funds will be 
fully used for aviation programs and not diverted to other modes of 
transportation, however worthy.
  The Appropriations Committee has been strict with the F&E program. 
Under the committee bill, funding for fiscal year 1996 is almost $100 
million, or 5 percent below the funding for fiscal year 1995. There is 
no indication that the needs of the program are any lower this year. In 
addition, the committee has rescinded $60 million of prior year 
appropriations; this represents funds which were made available for 
several years, and which FAA has not yet committed.
  The amendment proposes rescission of an additional $130 million from 
the F&E program. This will have serious adverse effects on FAA's 
ability to improve the safety and efficiency of the air traffic control 
system. There is no indication that the rescinded money is no longer 
needed. When this money was appropriated in prior years it was not 
expected that all of it would be spent in the first year; the money was 
made available for 3 years or more. The supporters of the amendment 
have not shown that any of the prior years' funding is no longer 
needed. Although some F&E projects have gone more slowly than 
anticipated they are going forward. If the money appropriated to 
support these programs is rescinded it will have to be reappropriated 
when the FAA is ready to spend it. In the difficult budget climate we 
will face, it is not realistic to expect that future year funding will 
be increased to make up for funds which were rescinded. Much or all of 
the rescinded funding will be lost forever.
  In short, the pending amendment threatens the safety and efficiency 
of the air traffic control system. I urge defeat of the Foglietta 
amendment.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Coleman].
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman from Virginia 
$1.7 billion is unobligated. It has already been appropriated, and the 
gentleman himself cut $60 million under facilities and equipment, page 
71 of the report, Mr. Chairman. In airport and highway trust rescission 
he has already cut $60 million out of it. The $130 million down to the 
$1.7 billion that has already been appropriated, that is how it does 
work, Mr. Chairman. Do not get worried about how it does, in fact, 
work. The gentleman has already rescinded that money. When I talked 
about highway safety, I am talking about the next section, research, 
engineering, and development, where he zeroed out a number of programs 
that he should not have.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Flanagan].
  (Mr. FLANAGAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Messrs. Fox and Foglietta. 
They have brought forward a well-crafted amendment, and urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, we all recognize that a sound national transportation 
system is critical to a robust economy. Without the ability to move 
goods and people efficiently, our economic engine would soon 
deteriorate and eventually stall.
  Today, Americans spend nearly $1 trillion on transportation and 
related services, which represents nearly 17 percent of our gross 
domestic product. Each $1 billion spent on
 highways and transit generates approximately 60,000 direct and 
indirect jobs. Mass transit does not only produce economic benefits, it 
also helps to reduce congestion, energy consumption, and pollution.

  With all this said, let us look at the appropriations legislation 
before us today. H.R. 2002 cuts mass transit operating assistance by 
$310 million. That's 

[[Page H7515]]
a 40-percent reduction. Combine this with the fact that there is also a 
20-percent reduction in capital funding, and we're talking about huge 
reduction in Federal support for mass transit. But while Federal 
funding for public transportation is sharply reduced, unfunded Federal 
mandates and regulations which burden our regional transit systems by 
driving up the costs of doing business are not being cut in the same 
expedient fashion.
  I believe that we will get there but not this fast and not in this 
fashion.
  Today, many of our regional transportation authorities are fighting 
for financial life. In order to survive, they're constantly trying to 
do more with less. But, they can do only so much until they reach the 
breaking point. Unless we first substantially reduce the amount of 
unfunded Federal regulations, we cannot, in good conscience, reduce a 
major source of income that keeps many of our transit systems afloat.
  Mr. Chairman, while these reductions in mass transit are proposed, 
our highways are receiving a $600 million increase from fiscal year 
1996 and the Federal Aviation Administration is funded nearly $1\1/2\ 
billion more than what the President requested in his budget. While I 
certainly support the concept of improved highways and airports, I 
cannot help but point out that there is something out of balance here. 
Highways, airports, and mass transit should complement each other, not 
compete against each other. I'm afraid with this kind of inequity in 
funding, highways, airports, and mass transit are being forced to 
become competitors. With all due respect to Mr. Wolf, this does not 
strike me as the best way to achieve an integrated, efficient national 
transportation system that serves as the lifeblood of our national 
economy.
  Millions of Americans are utilizing mass transit today. Most of these 
riders are going to work; many are going to the shops or to the doctor 
or to school. For these people, mass transit is a wise commuter 
alternative; for some, it is the only alternative.
  So, let us be fair to all of those people who rely on buses, subways, 
and light rail. We are not suggesting that Congress spend 
extravagantly. We are simply proposing to restore just some of the 
vital operating assistance our transit systems so desperately need. 
Congressmen Fox and Foglietta have steered a responsible course in 
bringing their amendment to the floor. Restoring $135 million in 
operating assistance is a good compromise.
  In the end, Mr. Chairman, passage of this amendment is the fair thing 
to do.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The amendment would cut approximately $130 million from the FAA's 
facilities and equipment prior-year accounts.
  The facilities and equipment account funds crucial safety equipment 
such as aviation radars, air traffic control equipment, and weather 
detection equipment.
  This amendment reaches back to prior-year funds and blindly grabs 
money--the the amendment doesn't state where the funding cuts are 
coming from. Will a radar get cut? Will a terminal Doppler Radar be 
cut?
  This amendment gives away Congress' power to determine where American 
tax dollars are to be spent and hands it over to bureaucrats who decide 
what radar in what city should be cut.
  This amendment would significantly delay or even cancel the delivery 
of aviation safety equipment at hundreds of U.S. airports all across 
the country.
  FAA has been criticized repeatedly about its inability to develop and 
delivery aviation equipment quickly.
  I am currently working with Congressman Lightfoot and Congressman 
Oberstar on a bill to reform FAA which would improve the way FAA 
acquires equipment. This amendment undermines that effort.
  It is important to remember that this amendment would cut FAA 
facilities and equipment funds which are supported 100 percent by the 
aviation trust fund.
  In other words, the gentleman's amendment would take away the 
opportunity to spend aviation taxes on aviation programs and instead 
spends funds on inner-city transit subsidies.
  This is wrong. These aviation taxes are placed in a trust fund, over 
$5 billion each year, for the sole purpose of aviation improvements at 
airports all over this Nation.
  Aviation users expect the taxes to support aviation projects which 
are badly needed.
  The fact is that this amendment does not save any money. It merely 
shifts money from important aviation safety projects to transit 
subsidies.
  I strongly oppose the Foglietta amendment and urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no.''
                              {time}  1900

  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to 
the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said on two occasions that we are not 
concerned about air safety, but rather inner-city subsidy mass 
transportation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is, 
sir, we are concerned about air safety, and the fact is that we will 
have remaining in this account $1.58 billion after this reduction is 
made, and we are putting an additional $2 billion in this year. The 
fact is that this money will not be used only for inner-cities, but for 
every small town throughout the United States of America to provide 
some sort of mass transportation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Sabo].
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Foglietta 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, operating subsidy is crucial for the operation of our 
transit systems, both in rural and urban America. I represent urban 
America. I represent an area with bus systems. The reality is that for 
thousands of people who live in our urban centers, the only way they 
have mobility is through the bus system. In other areas it may be rail, 
but in mine it is all bus.
  There is a significant number of people, I believe today the number I 
heard was over half the people, in poverty have no cars. Most of them 
are working. The only way they get to their job is by riding a bus.
  Buses are labor intensive. You have to have somebody operating them. 
You cut this operating subsidy, States are cutting back, the only thing 
that is going to happen is that the rate structure is going to go up, 
or they are going to cut routes in our urban areas, and what it means 
is fewer and fewer people can get to work.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about welfare reform, of requiring 
people to go from welfare to work. I think we all agree with that. But 
the reality for
 thousands of people who live in our urban centers today is the only 
way they are going to be able to get to a job is to ride transit. We 
are either going to eliminate the service or make it more expensive.

  The amendment makes sense. My only problem is I wish it were more 
generous. It is a very moderate reinstatement of funds for operating 
purposes. It makes good sense, and the House should adopt it.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment 
offered by my friends and neighbors, the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, 
Mr. Foglietta and Mr. Fox. In rhetoric, we talk a lot about protecting 
the environment, in encouraging mass transit, and in encouraging people 
to use more cost-effective ways to go to work.
  In New Jersey as well as other States in the Union people are being 
forced to endure higher cost car inspections costs and put new emission 
controls on their vehicles, all in the name of environmental 
protection. The best thing we can do in the name of environmental 
protection is to encourage people to use mass transit. Dramatic cuts in 
name work in the opposite direction. The gentlemen from Pennsylvania, 
Mr. 

[[Page H7516]]
Foglietta and Mr. Fox, have offered a modest, sensible way to 
reallocate funds from one part of this bill to another to encourage 
more people to use more mass transit.
  This is good economically, it is good environmentally, and I want to 
urge my colleagues to support this well-thought-out amendment.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that I respect greatly the chairman of my 
subcommittee, and sometimes when he speaks against mass transportation, 
I think he is speaking with his head and not with his heart, because he 
was a resident of Philadelphia who rode the mass transportation daily 
on his way to work and on his way to school, so I know he has a great 
sympathy for what we are trying to accomplish
  But let me say, Mr. Chairman, that, No. 1, we are concerned about air 
transportation safety. We are desperately concerned about that on this 
side of the aisle.
  However, we want Members to understand that even if we make this 
rescission, there will remain $1.58 billion unobligated, and this year 
we are adding $2 billion more for air traffic safety. So we are 
concerned about safety.
  But let me just say also that, No. 2, this is not a subsidy only for 
inner-city mass transportation. This is helping mass transportation 
throughout the United States of America. Senior citizens in small 
villages need to get to the doctors, they need to get to their bank. 
This is provided for them by mass transportation.
  In urban areas, people have to get to work. We are concerned so much 
about taking people off of welfare and putting them in jobs. We have to 
understand, Mr. Chairman, that there are many people throughout this 
Nation who cannot afford automobiles, who depend on mass transportation 
for their livelihood and their very existence.
  I ask Members to please support the Foglietta-Fox amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 4\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition. The gentleman is 
right, I took the 36 trolley car and went downtown; and, to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews], I used to take the trolley car 
when I was a mailboy for Curtis Publishing Co. over to Campbell Soup. 
So I am a big fan of mass transit, but this is not the way to do what 
the gentleman is doing. Let me read from the hearings.
  In the hearings, this is what was said:

       Virtually all of the 2,300 radar displays in our en route 
     center are over 23 years old.

  This is the Secretary of Transportation.

       We have more than 500 landing systems that are between 15 
     and 30 years old. We have close to 400 radars that are 
     between 15 and 30 years old, all of the largest 
     communications switches in our en route center.

  Then the Secretary goes on to say:

       All the largest communications switches in our en route 
     centers are over 29 years old. In an age where generations of 
     computer technology are measured in months, the FAA spends $7 
     million a year on vacuum tubes, a technology invented at the 
     time of the Wright Brothers' first flight. This would be a 
     mistake.

  In the hearings, the Secretary made it clear.
  Second, the minority Members, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], 
my good friend, signed the minority views, and this is what the 
minority said:

       Moreover, we believe that many important transportation 
     technology and safety enhancing activities are cut too deeply 
     in this bill.

  Now, you thought it was cut too deeply in the bill; now you want to 
cut it deeper. The minority said:

       We had hope for a better vision, bolder ideas and a more 
     balanced approach to the critical transportation 
     infrastructure and safety issues financed in the bill.

  Well, that is what we are doing. The gentleman is going the other 
way.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The 
Foglietta amendment does not touch a dime of that. Just so the 
gentleman knows and so our colleagues are aware of the facts, it does 
not cut a dime of that.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it does. It cuts the 
money here that the Secretary says he needs. It cuts the facilities and 
equipment accounts, it cuts safety, and if Members will recall the 
North Carolina situation in Charlotte where the airplane crashed 
because the terminal Doppler radar system in Charlotte was not there, 
it would deal with wind shear alert system and many of the things the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] and the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Duncan] said.
  In closing, we put in the report so Members could see, although I 
know very few people read these things, it said:

       In setting priorities for this bill, the committee has 
     placed the strongest emphasis on maintaining and improving 
     wherever possible transportation safety around the nation. 
     Because of significant concerns over the past year regarding 
     the state of aviation safety, the committee feels strongly 
     that additional funding emphasis should be placed on new 
     safety related equipment. Among other things, this equipment 
     will provide controllers, pilots and airline dispatchers, a 
     more accurate and up-to-date understanding of dangerous 
     weather conditions and provide a clear picture and automated 
     alerting of potential conflicts between aircraft maneuvering 
     on airport surfaces.

  If you vote for the gentleman's amendment from Pennsylvania, you will 
be basically negating this page from the report, because it will be 
basically meaningless. We put money in for safety because safety is 
important. Quite frankly, you could probably abolish the Department of 
Transportation, if it were not for the safety role. This is a 
fundamental major safety issue, and I strongly urge my colleagues, 
whether you are for mass transit or against, it, and I happen to be for 
it, the way to solve it is not to take safety money from the FAA.
  So I strongly urge and plead on behalf of the flying public, a ``no'' 
vote on the Foglietta amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded vote

  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on this 
amendment will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?


               Amendment Offered by mr. SMITH of Michigan

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, marked No. 
12.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan: Page 27, line 
     9, strike ``$1,665,000,000'' and insert ``999,000,000''.
       Page 27, line 12, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 27, line 15, strike the semicolon and all that follows 
     through ``project'' on page 30, line 6.

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
debate on this amendment be extended to 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each 
side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would ask 
if I could have one-half the time reserved for those in opposition for 
the minority side?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I would yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman].
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would 
ask the gentleman, is this the amendment with reference to the 40 
percent under ISTEA available for construction of new fixed guideway 
systems?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, 
this is the new start, taking out the $666 million for 1 year.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

[[Page H7517]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.


                             point of order

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, the new starts fiscal year 1996 
appropriations, as well as the entire section 3 obligation limitations, 
is consistent, to the chairman's credit, with section 3006 of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. This section 
provides that section 3 of Federal transit administration discretionary 
grants shall, shall be available as follows: ``Forty percent shall be 
available for construction of new fixed guideway systems and extensions 
to fixed guideway systems.''
  The amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] would lower 
the ISTEA authorization percentages by virtue of the reduction in 
funds, in which the gentleman does that specifically on letter B on 
page 172 of ISTEA, specifically reducing this 40 percent available for 
construction of new fixed guideway systems and extensions to fixed 
guideway systems, and, in doing so, takes away the authorizing language 
of the 40 percent that shall be available for construction of such 
guideway systems. This would alter the authorized percentages, and thus 
would constitute an authorizing change on an appropriations bill, 
violating rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] desire to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply deletes an 
amount appropriated in the bill and is consistent with the rules of the 
House.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, in furtherance of the point of order, I 
would have the Chair note that the reality is that last year's bill, 
which also tried to reduce the authorization, needed special language 
in order to accomplish that, because it could not be done strictly by 
reducing the amount.

                              {time}  1915

  So, therefore, while it is the amount that it is being reduced, it, 
in fact, goes against the grain of the authorizing mandatory language 
in ISTEA which suggests that 40 percent shall be available for such 
construction.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] wish to be 
heard further on the point of order?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to comment 
that almost one-half of these projects are unauthorized. They have been 
appropriated, but they have been unauthorized projects. It is not 
consistent with the rules of this House to do that except when those 
unauthorized projects are protected by a decision of the Committee on 
Rules. In this case, they have. The only recourse Members have is to 
consider a reduction in the amount appropriated, and I would suggest to 
the Chair that that is consistent with the rules of the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  The CHAIR is prepared to rule.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Michigan is a reduction in an 
amount of appropriation. There are no textual changes in the 
distribution formula.
  Therefore, the point of order is overruled.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  It is very difficult to proceed with an amendment that reduces 666 
million out of a budget and just simply give an argument of 10 minutes. 
Four of us will attempt to do that.
  When I was director of energy for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
in the early 1970's, we met every morning at 6:30 at the White House to 
decide how we were going to conserve energy, how we were going to 
reduce pollution, and how we were going to serve people that needed to 
move to the inner cities.
  We decided to give extra support for mass transit at that time for 
those reasons. In every case for the pollution question, for the 
environmental question, for the conservation of energy question, for 
helping people move to the inner city, those efforts in these fixed 
guideway systems have failed.
  This bill has $660 million which is an incredible increase of $19 
million over last year's appropriation. The point is that many new 
starts are losing local support because of the inefficiency, because of 
the high cost, so we see local units pulling back while willy nilly we 
continue to say we
 will use Federal taxpayer dollars to continue to support these 
projects.

  I name a couple, the Tasman project in California, which was approved 
and funded. They pulled out because of lack of local support. The 
Chicago circulator project pulled out. The Salt Lake City and the Los 
Angeles and the Portland project are now under scrutiny because even 
with the maximum 80 percent cost share by the Federal Government and 
only 20 percent cost share by locals, they think their 20 percent is a 
waste of money. So this amendment simply says, let us set back for one 
year, let us have a moratorium of 1 year and have an examination of 
what is helpful and realistic.
  We have sent a letter to GAO, signed by myself, the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Chabot], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman 
of the Committee on the Budget, and said, evaluate these projects to 
see if it is reasonable to have this cost and if they will be helpful.
  This amendment is what was recommended by the House budget resolution 
passed by this body just weeks ago. It is supported by the Citizens for 
a Sound Economy. It is supported by the American Legislative Exchange 
Council. It is supported by the Americans
 for Tax Reform. The National Taxpayers Union is scoring it. It was 
actually suggested by the Heritage Association.

  This, my colleagues, is an important amendment. Consider where you 
want to borrow the money and spend that money in future years. By 
building these projects, we are also committing ourselves to 
subsidizing these projects in future years, because they cannot operate 
by themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Largent].
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Smith-
Chabot amendment to terminated new starts for mass transit. Mr. 
Chairman, we just passed, then just failed by voice vote here on the 
floor to offer additional moneys for mass transit operating expenses. 
At a time of budgetary constraints that we are in at this time, it 
makes no sense at all to be appropriating money for new starts for mass 
transit.
  I do so also support this amendment because the current Federal 
transit funding system relative to mass transit, each time a gallon of 
gasoline is purchased in the United States, 1\1/2\ cents goes into the 
mass transit account of the highway trust fund.
  The State of Oklahoma is a generous donor State in public transit. In 
fiscal year 1993, Oklahomans paid an estimated $30 million into the 
Federal mass transit account and received less than $2 million in 
return. Oklahoma ranks 42nd in return on Federal mass transit dollars.
  I ask why should Oklahomans and other donor States pay for mass 
transit systems in Washington, New York, Philadelphia, Boston, when my 
own hometown of Tulsa is in dire need of mass transit funding. It is 
not only not fair, it is ridiculous. The Federal Government has been 
subsidizing mass transit with the well-intentioned hope that it would 
become an efficient self-supporting method of transportation. 
Unfortunately, it has not worked out.
  I believe that in this era of returning responsibility and authority 
back to localities, which have to deal with the everyday problems that 
towns and cities face, funds for mass transit which are generated at 
the local level should remain at the local level.
  I support this commonsense amendment which puts an end for new rail 
starts for mass transit. I urge all of my colleagues and especially 
those from donor States to vote ``aye'' on the Smith-Chabot amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] will be recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page H7518]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith-
Chabot amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith-Chabot amendment and 
urge my colleagues to join both the authorizing committee and the 
appropriations committee in opposing this short-sighted amendment.
  I say short-sighted because this amendment ignores the lessons we 
have learned about reducing traffic congestion and cleaning up our 
polluted air. In some of our cities building new highways is not 
enough. Traffic congestion has brought us acres of new parking lots 
where once commerce and commuters traveled freely. We learned that our 
mobility solutions must involve both highway and transit alternatives.
  In some heavily congested corridors, such as those listed in this 
bill, the appropriate new transportation investment is a transit fixed 
guideway system which we call a ``New Start.'' These new starts include 
busways in Texas and California, light rail lines in Maryland and 
Oregon, commuter rail lines in fast-growing Florida, a downtown 
circulation system in Memphis, TN, and a ferry boat terminal in New 
York City.
  In other words, striking New Start funds, as this amendment would do, 
would hurt tens of millions of American commuters who depend on transit 
solutions to meet their local mobility needs. We should support, not 
undercut, our national transportation policy which allows our cities at 
the State and local level to select the transportation solutions, 
highway or transit, which are right for them. Let's not micromanage our 
local folks out of business or pit one city against another.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues know that the authorizing and 
appropriating committees have not always agreed on every issue on this 
floor. Well, today we stand united in opposing the Smith amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the ``us against them'' philosophy 
embodied in this amendment and vote against the Smith-Chabot amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, none of these projects are new starts. None. There is 
not a new start in the projects. It is the name that has been given, 
and we should probably change the name. All of the projects here have 
been funded in the past after extensive hearings. Some of them are the 
very best in the country. Let me give you one example.
  The San Juan Tren Urbano project, the local government is paying two-
thirds of the project and the cost effectiveness is $4, well below the 
$7 threshold recommended by the FDA. Another one involved here for 
Members from Texas is the Dallas project. The local match is 80 
percent, if we could get local government to match 80 percent.
  So really, there are no new starts in the project. Every single 
project that will be cut has had a continued funding, some for many, 
many years. In fact there is one or two, this will be the last amount 
of money that they will get. The one with regard to, up in Chicago, the 
commuter rail, 14.4. This would be the last time they will get it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, we did the budget constraints. We provide 
only $513 million for these 11 projects, even though the president 
recommended $677 million.
  All of the projects recommended in the bill will require significant 
State and local financial commitments. I think that the chairman just 
spoke to that issue. I will go down them: Dallas, TX, South Oak Cliff 
project, Los Angeles CA, New York, Houston, TX, Orange County 
Transitway, San Francisco, CA, airport project, Trem Urbano project in 
Puerto Rico. We all understand that commitment.
  I cannot support an amendment that further cuts Federal support for 
transit infrastructure when this bill already cuts it, capital 
assistance 20 percent below the 1995 level. We talk about cutting 
transit assistance. We are really talking about ordinary people who 
depend on the bus, subway or train every day. We are talking about 
working Americans, 6 million people who use transit to get to work 
every day.
  We need to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], cosponsor of this amendment.
  (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, relative to the term new starts, many of 
these projects, nothing has actually happened on the ground. There are 
some environmental studies or they are in some sort of study. Nothing 
has really happened. So many of them are in the very early stages.
  I believe it is absolutely critical for the future of this Nation 
that we finally balance the budget, not by raising taxes but by cutting 
spending. We are looking for places to cut spending. This is clearly a 
place to cut spending.
  The Federal Government has financed a number of fixed guideway mass 
transit projects over the past three decades. This year the House 
Committee on the Budget at last decided that new light rail systems 
cannot be economically justified and recommended that we end the 
practice of funding these new projects. Despite huge amounts of Federal 
spending to build and then to subsidize the operating expenses of local 
light rail systems, many of these projects are proving to be expensive 
boondoggles.
  The Smith-Chabot amendment would accelerate the savings to the 
taxpayers by eliminating from next year's spending $66 million for new 
starts. Now, that is a huge amount of money. But the implications of 
this initial spending go far beyond that. We are talking about long-
term commitment that would cost American taxpayers billions of dollars 
if these things go through.
  Once these projects are started, cities and States look to the 
Federal Government to pay future construction costs. In fact, the 
Committee on Appropriations reported that the Federal cost for 
completing new projects has surged $20 billion, a 150-percent increase 
over 4 years ago.
  I have been told by people back in my district, which is Cincinnati, 
that our No. 1 priority should be achieving a balanced budget. I 
strongly agree with those sentiments. Many of the people at the State 
and local level do not believe that light rail makes economic sense but 
will nonetheless proceed with such projects if the Federal Government 
will foot the bill. We can no longer afford to foot the bill. We are 
broke.
  At a time when our No. 1 priority is achieving a balanced budget, 
Federal funding for new light rail projects just does not make sense. A 
Department of Transportation study has found that subsidies for 
building and operating mass transit rail programs costs between $5,000 
and over $17,000 per rider. New mass transit rail systems are so 
incredibly expensive to build that it might actually be cheaper if we 
just bought people cars.
  It is absurd. We should pass this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  (Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Smith-Chabot amendment.
  No one wants to be a pork barrel politician these days. It isn't the 
politically correct thing to do. But we cannot afford to run every time 
we see a needed infrastructure project come along.
  We cannot afford to make the mistake of sticking our heads in the 
sand--no matter how badly we want to balance the budget--and pretend 
that we aren't going to need improvements in our Nation's 
infrastructure in the next several decades.
  This amendment basically does just that. It says ``We can save a few 
dollars today by pretending our transportation system won't be 
overloaded to the point of breakdown in the next 10 years.
  We can do that--but it is very foolish to do so. What do we do in 10 
years? Park our cars and walk?
  I am not familiar with every project on this list. There might be 
some clinkers in there--there might be some projects that go oink in 
the night.
  But I am familiar with one project in particular--the I-71/I-75 
corridor study to determine 

[[Page H7519]]
the best way to meet our transportation needs in the future on a 
heavily traveled corridor through Cincinnati, OH and northern Kentucky.
  This project is not pork. This project is a vital infrastructure 
necessity, if our area is going to continue growing without gridlock.
  We can't just stick our heads in the sand, in northern Kentucky and 
southern Ohio. We know that traffic through this corridor is going to 
increase to between 100,000 and 160,000 vehicles a day over the next 10 
years--if we can keep them moving.
  We know that emplanements at the Cincinnati/northern Kentucky airport 
are going to more than double over the next 10 years--if the people can 
get there.
  We know that the air quality problems which have already plagued the 
area periodically are going to get worse--unless we find new ways to 
move people through the corridor.
  We know that northern Kentucky is growing like wildfire and that 
major downtown and waterfront developments are taking place on both 
sides of the Ohio river and we know that the existing transportation 
system is not going to be able to handle this expansion.
  And we have responded to these facts--reasonably, rationally and 
cautiously. We have followed the blueprint laid out in ISTEA.
  The Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments--which 
serves as the designated metropolitan planning organization for the 
area, supports this project. It has the support of the Governors of 
Ohio and Kentucky and the local officials on both sides of the river.
  The Federal Government has already invested $2\1/2\ million in this 
ongoing study. State and local sponsors have already spent over 
$600,000. This project was included in the highway authorization bill 
that passed this body last year. It is not something new that we 
dreamed up on the spur of the moment.
  This project has followed all the rules.
  This bill provides $2 million to continue the process and provide for 
an environmental impact study and preliminary engineering--so that we 
can determine the best way to proceed.
  It would be ridiculous, at this point, to throw out everything we 
have done--ignoring the investment of $2\1/2\ million--to save $2 
million today.
  The Smith-Chabot amendment is penny wise and pound foolish, Mr. 
Chairman and we simply can't afford it.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. We can save a few 
bucks today by sticking our heads in the sand but if we do so, sometime 
down the road, we are going to find out that not only do we have sand 
in our ears but we also have one terrible traffic jam.
  Reject Smith-Chabot.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], whose State is adversely affected by this 
amendment.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We have heard 
about pork barrel. Let me say, this amendment is sound bite politics. 
Virtually every program the gentleman wishes to strike has broad 
bipartisan support. I think my colleague, the gentleman from New 
Jersey, will be saying the same thing.
  I received a call from the office of Republican Governor Christine 
Whitman saying, ``Look, you need to speak against this ill-advised 
amendment.'' In my State, this amendment would destroy more than a 
dozen years of hard work and bipartisanship that created universal 
support for an essential transportation program that has been a model 
for the Nation.
  The discretionary grant section of this bill includes New Jersey's 
urban core project, which is of major importance to New Jersey, both in 
terms of jobs created and for the improvement in our mass transit 
system. By linking several of New Jersey Transit's existing rail lines 
and modernizing equipment and facilities, the New Jersey urban core 
project is designed to make travel on the State rail network quicker, 
safer, and more convenient for thousands of current and potential 
riders.
  The passage of the Smith amendment, as Governor Whitman's office 
says, would be devastating to New Jersey, and for that fact, other 
forward-looking States' transportation systems, and to the employment 
of hundreds of thousands of workers nationwide who depend on public 
transportation.
  We talk about empowering people, Mr. Chairman, but the fact of the 
matter is that one of the major ways we do this is to create a 
transportation system that can get people to where there is work, or to 
shopping centers that create economic opportunities for the host 
communities to realize rateables and create jobs. This is knee-jerk, 
uninformed, and I would suggest it is posturing at its worst. Mr. 
Chairman, I urge the House to reject the amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough].
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I suppose I speak now for the knee-
jerk uninformed types, because I believe an old Yiddish proverb that 
says no matter how long and how far you go down a path, if it is the 
wrong path, it is time to turn around. We have been going down this 
path and this railway for a long time. The fact of the matter is it 
still does not pay for itself.
  For more than two decades the Federal Government has subsidized mass 
transit in hopes that it would become an efficient, self-supporting 
method of transportation. Unfortunately, it just has not worked out. 
Most people have chosen not to ride, and we have had to continually 
subsidize the existing systems. In 1970, public transportation carried 
9 percent of commuters nationwide. Over the past 20 years, we have been 
pumping in federally subsidized dollars, and still the number continues 
to plummet. It has now fallen to 5 percent, yet the fares that are 
being charged do not even cover current operating costs in any system. 
That is true in every mass transit system in this country. Mass transit 
is clearly not cost effective.
  This amendment makes sense, and it says that rail systems are using 
resources that could be better used elsewhere. That is why the National 
Taxpayers Union and other groups are coming out front and saying a very 
basic truth that Americans want us to say in this Government: If it 
does not make economic sense, if you could not find anybody in the 
private sector to engage in this type of business, then we do not need 
to throw more good money at bad money. We need to freeze new spending 
for these types of projects, say no to this waste and this pork, and 
move forward and be cost efficient and probusiness.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis], a member of the committee.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much my 
colleague yielding time to me. I would like to extend my 
congratulations to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wolf, the chairman, 
as well as to the ranking member, Mr. Coleman, for the fantastic job 
they have done on a very, very difficult subject area.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill appropriates $1.4 billion less than the 1995 
transportation bill. Furthermore, this bill even falls $384 million 
below the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation. This is a very, very tough 
bill and a very, very difficult circumstance. This amendment before us 
has the potential of costing State and local governments millions of 
dollars to close down projects, settle lawsuits, and pay termination 
costs to contractors. Beyond that, if we cut this funding, we are 
eliminating jobs.
  Unfortunately, the amendment will not reduce the deficit or even 
reduce Federal spending. The $666 million the amendment proposes to cut 
will be put back into the Highway Trust Fund to be allocated at some 
future date. The amendment cuts funding for important projects in 
Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland, Dallas,
 Houston, Los Angeles, and the list goes on. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on the amendment.

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].
  (Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks).
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith-
Chabot amendment. This amendment unfairly penalizes communities across 
this Nation by eliminating their fair share of transit funding.
  The Federal Government has recognized the importance of balancing the 
transit needs of older and newer communities by dividing mass transit 
funding into three parts:

[[Page H7520]]

  Forty percent of funding goes to rail modernization designed to 
assist older communities with previously developed transit systems--
such as New York, Boston, and Philadelphia.
  Forty percent is allocated to so-called new starts to develop transit 
in newer cities in the West, Southwest, and Southeast, such as Los 
Angeles, Portland, Houston, and Dallas.
  And the remaining 20 percent is to be allocated for bus projects 
nationwide.
 The Smith-Chabot amendment would eliminate essential transit projects 
designed to assist communities and transit riders in newer and still 
burgeoning urban and suburban areas. While older communities would 
continue to receive funding for transit, newer areas would be unfairly 
penalized.

  I also want to address specific issues raised by the sponsors of the 
amendment with respect to the Los Angles metro rail project. Contrary 
to the Dear Colleague circulated by the sponsors, support among locally 
elected officials, Los Angeles County communities, and the business 
community remains nearly unanimous.
  The sponsors of the amendment cite a commentary by State senator Tom 
Hayden, criticizing ridership figures on the Los Angeles subway. But 
those ridership figures are based on only 4.4 miles of subway currently 
operating out of a total of 23 miles to be constructed.
  When complete, red line ridership will be fed by another 56 miles of 
light rail. The subway is the spine of a comprehensive transit system, 
the object of which is to make mass transit in Los Angeles accessible 
and convenient--changing a culture that relies on the automobile. That 
reliance must end if the region is to address problems of mobility, 
economic efficiency, and worsening air quality.
  The need for the Los Angeles system is clear. Los Angeles County's 
population will increase by 3 million to almost 12 million by 2015. 
This is comparable to adding the current city of Los Angeles to the 
county's population.
  Finally, I want to point out that the Federal Government has a 
contract with the citizens of Los Angeles County to fulfill its 
commitment on this project. Los Angeles is more than pulling its weight 
in investing in transit.
  Over the years, we have continued to seek only a 50-percent Federal 
share out of a possible 80 percent. Twice, we have voted to tax 
ourselves to increase mass transit investments. And 70 percent of our 
total rail system is being built with no Federal involvement.
  I strongly oppose the Smith-Chabot amendment and urge its defeat.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California, [Ms. Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith-
Chabot amendment to the Department of Transportation Appropriations 
bill. This amendment would transfer money allocated for needed mass 
transit projects back into the Highway Trust Fund.
  These Section 3 New Rail Starts and Extensions projects are strategic 
transportation investments in our cities which act as a magnet for 
economic development and productivity. These projects will provide our 
urban and suburban areas with effective and diverse transportation 
options.
  In the San Francisco Bay Area, we are committed to a $3.5 billion 
rail extension program capital program. Seventy percent of these 
projects are being financed with voter approved sales taxes and State 
bonds. The largest rail extension, the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, 
would link the San Francisco International Airport to San Francisco and 
the rest of the Bay Area.
  The airport is under a major expansion program. The projected 
increase in traffic to the San Francisco Airport would overwhelm the 
existing highway system. A rail link is vital for air travelers 
arriving in the Bay area, for airport workers, and for commuters.
  Federal funding for new rail starts addresses many important issues 
for our communities and cities. Mass transit can significantly improve 
air quality. Rail provides transportation services to the elderly and 
the disabled. Mass transit reduces the congestion on our highways which 
are being stretched the limit in many parts of the country. In the San 
Francisco Bay Area we have virtually exhausted our ability to build new 
highways or widen existing highways.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment saves no money, since the funds would 
revert back to the Highway Trust Fund. I urge the defeat of this attack 
on mass transit. These new rail starts are forward-looking, sound, 
transportation investments in our cities. Let us make these needed 
investments.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Becerra].
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek], who is also from a State which will be adversely 
affected by this amendment.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Smith 
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. There is no deficit 
reduction in the Smith amendment, but there is a reduction in the 
quality of human lives that reside in all of our communities.
  If Members look at where transportation needs are, my State of 
Florida is growing by over 700 people a day. They need to have a chance 
to get to work. We talk about jobs; this is a way to get jobs in our 
community.
  I could speak from a personal experience about how good doing these 
new starts are. Dade County, FL, is one of the fastest growing areas. 
Our roads are gridlocked. There is no land for more growth. All of the 
super highways have been built. There is simply no more room to build 
new ones. We do not want this bill to be a relief act for the big 
transportation highway builders, we want to get a way for our people to 
get to work. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], a member of the committee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith 
amendment. I believe it is shortsighted and it goes against the very 
principles of the ISTEA act of 1991. When Congress passed ISTEA, the 
goal was to give flexibility to the States, so that they could best 
meet their own transportation needs. The Smith amendment denies this 
right.
  Mass transportation has already been cut substantially in this bill. 
This Congress has said time and time again that one-size-fits-all 
approach does not work. If a State chooses mass transit over highways, 
then they should be afforded that option, and not be forced into one 
type of transportation.
  The Smith amendment is sending the wrong message. Mass transportation 
is a vital link to the economic and social well-being of the citizens 
of New Jersey and of the Northeast, the entire United States. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] has one-half 
minute remaining, each of the other two gentlemen have 1 minute 
remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] has the right to 
close.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and not to 
attempt to repeat everything that has been said, but this amendment 
will interfere with a number of projects already started. In Dallas 
alone, it will interfere with 64,000 jobs, with the capacity to 
increase the worth and the amount of revenue into the billions of 
dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will stop transportation routes that 
have already begun, that would get people to work, to their homes, and 
then provide jobs. I would ask all of my colleagues to vote against 
this amendment.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from 
Texas.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentlewoman in the time 
remaining, it is true, is it not, that the local government of Dallas, 
TX, is paying for 55 percent of the Dallas, TX, south Cliff project, as 
it is?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. That is right, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
I would just say that this is the kind of amendment that does a lot of 
damage to a lot of projects that are in varying stages of development 
all across the United States. It should be defeated.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] has a final 
one-half minute remaining.

[[Page H7521]]

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, these are local projects. We are 
asking for a 1-year moratorium. The gentleman from Ohio, John Kasich, 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and several of us have 
requested that GAO evaluate these projects. Mr. Chairman, I would like 
to mention that we have the Committee on the Budget resolution that we 
passed, the National Taxpayers Union, the Citizens for a Sound Economy, 
Americans for Tax Reform, and Heritage support this amendment. We have 
to take time to move back and decide the best way to spend available 
funds.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and 
yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Coyne] for closing.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment before 
the House which would eliminate all funding for mass transit projects 
and shift these funds to highway projects.
  I am very concerned about the impact of this proposed amendment on 
the people I represent. Pittsburgh and the Port Authority of Allegheny 
County are depending on the Airport Busway project to provide a cost-
effective answer to the traffic congestion now common between downtown 
and the airport.
  The Airport Busway used former railroad rights of ways as dedicated 
roadways for transit buses that travel free from local traffic 
congestion. This project is ranked as one of the most cost-effective in 
the country and the Port Authority of Allegheny County has already 
completed a full funding grant agreement with the Federal Government.
  The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is also depending on 
the Airport Busway to provide an alternative to the Ft. Pitt Tunnel and 
Bridge which is the main Interstate 279 link between the city of 
Pittsburgh and the suburban area south of Pittsburgh. The tunnel is 
scheduled to be closed for renovation and PennDOT is depending on the 
Airport Busway to provide an alternative to this bridge which is one of 
the busiest traffic points in the city.
  The Airport Busway began construction last year and is scheduled to 
be completed by 1997. Stopping this project at this point would be 
catastrophic for the city of Pittsburgh and the port authority. It 
would result in the waste of over $184 million in previously approved 
Federal funds. This is hardly the way to safeguard the Federal 
taxpayer's money.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith-Chabot 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] will be 
postponed.
  Are there further amendments to title I?


          sequential votes postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, proceedings will now resume on 
those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed, in the 
following order: Amendment No. 24 offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. LaTourette]; the unnumbered amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta]; finally, amendment No. 12, offered 
by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.
                  amendment offered by mr. la tourette

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 234, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 558]

                               AYES--183

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Bishop
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frisa
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heineman
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Williams
     Wise
     Wyden
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--234

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Luther
     Martinez
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Orton
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry

[[Page H7522]]

     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Tucker
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Baker (LA)
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Collins (MI)
     Ford
     Gillmor
     Hansen
     Hilliard
     McKinney
     Moakley
     Nussle
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Schroeder
     Stark
     Towns
     Volkmer

                              {time}  2003

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Bilbray against.
       Ms. McKinney for, with Mr. Nussle against.

  Messrs. GENE GREEN of Texas, KENNEDY of Rhode Island, WELDON of 
Pennsylvania, BENTSEN, WHITE, BOEHLERT, MARTINEZ, and HEFLEY changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. MANZULLO, PETRI, QUILLEN, JEFFERSON, GONZALEZ, DEUTSCH, and 
WARD changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the Chair announces he will 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote 
by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on which the Chair 
has postponed further proceedings.


                   amendment offered by mr. foglietta

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the unnumbered amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Foglietta], on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 122, 
noes 295, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 559]

                               AYES--122

     Andrews
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blute
     Bonior
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dooley
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     King
     LaFalce
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lowey
     Luther
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--295

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Baker (LA)
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Collins (MI)
     Ford
     Gillmor
     Hansen
     Hilliard
     McKinney
     Moakley
     Nussle
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Schroeder
     Stark
     Towns
     Volkmer

                              {time}  2012

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Moakley for with Mr. Bilbray against.
       Ms. McKinney for with Mr. Nussle against.

  Messrs. GEJDENSON, JOHNSTON of Florida, CONDIT, ZELIFF, and HEFNER 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD and Mr. FARR changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the Chair announces he will 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote 
by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on which the Chair 
has postponed further proceedings.


           amendment no. 12 offered by mr. smith of michigan

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 12 offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith], 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 114, 
noes 302, not voting 18, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 560]

                               AYES--114

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Boehner
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coburn
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn

[[Page H7523]]

     Ensign
     Everett
     Fields (TX)
     Funderburk
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Jones
     Kasich
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Leach
     Lincoln
     Longley
     Luther
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Obey
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Portman
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stockman
     Stump
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walker
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Zeliff

                               NOES--302

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Baker (LA)
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Collins (MI)
     Ford
     Gillmor
     Hansen
     Hilliard
     McKinney
     Moakley
     Nussle
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Schroeder
     Solomon
     Stark
     Towns
     Volkmer

                             {time}   2020

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Nussle for with Ms. Mckinney against.

  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma and Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?


                    amendment offered by Ms. Danner

  Ms. DANNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 21.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] reserves a point 
of order.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Danner: Page 25, line 25, strike 
     ``$2,000,000,000'' and insert ``$1,974,000,000''.
       Page 26, line 1, before the colon insert ``and $26,000,000 
     of budget authority shall be available solely for purposes of 
     49 U.S.C. 5311''.

  (Ms. DANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia reserve his point of 
order or insist upon his point of order?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order and will allow 
the gentlewoman an opportunity to discuss her amendment.
  Ms. DANNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is designed to restore funding for rural 
transit assistance programs to fiscal year 1995 levels. This can be 
done in a deficit-neutral way, which will have a minimal effect on 
other transit funding.
  Under this proposal, Congress would reduce the $2 billion transit 
formula grant by $26 million, which would be added to the section 18 
allocation. The remaining funds would then be distributed according to 
the bill's formula.
  Today, there are roughly 1,200 rural transit agencies that would 
benefit from this amendment. These agencies operate in 316 
Congressional districts across our Nation and their service area 
encompasses 53 million people.
  While rural transit programs receive Federal funds, the money is 
distributed to the States, which are then given the authority to design 
and manage their own programs. This allows rural transit providers, 
many of whom are independent contractors, to administer their programs 
without the large bureaucracies many transit agencies develop.
  In my home state of Missouri, there are 30 rural transit providers, 
who operate in 98 percent of the States' counties. These providers 
include, among others, the OATS system--formerly known as the Older 
Adult Transportation System. Last year, in the State of Missouri, OATS 
provided more than 1 million one-way trips in their vans and busses, 
transporting 21 thousand people more than 5 million miles. This was 
achieved with only $11,140 in section 18 Federal operating assistance.
  To me, this is an example of the true role of government--finding 
cost-efficient ways to improve the standard of living and freedom of 
our Nation's citizens.
  Some of those in Congress may question why rural transit should be 
singled out. It is important to do so because rural transit is far more 
dependent on Federal subsidies than other transit programs. Rural 
transit depends on Federal funding for 24 percent of the operating 
budget. While many larger transit agencies can absorb the large cuts 
proposed in this bill, rural transit is in a far more precarious 
position.
  In addition, section 18 programs are given far less Federal Transit 
Administration assistance. On a per-capita basis, FTA assistance in 
rural areas is the equivalent of $1.50 per user, as compared with more 
than $35 per user in our largest cities. Yet, for those in rural areas 
who are unable to drive, public transportation is often their only 
opportunity to perform vital tasks most of us take for granted, such as 
grocery shopping or visiting the doctor.
  It is also important that we look at who depends upon rural transit.
  The people who use rural transit are older Americans, people with 
disabilities and the rural poor who cannot afford a car of their own. 
In a rural setting, these people simply have no alternative except to 
rely on rural transportation programs. Transit systems exist 

[[Page H7524]]
to serve people such as those I have just mentioned. It is unwise and 
unfair to exclude citizens from transportation services simply because 
of where they live.
  Although this amendment is subject to a point of order, I hope that 
my colleagues will remember and consider the importance of rural 
transportation to millions of our citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of the 
amendment offered by the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. 
Danner].
  This amendment would restore funding to fiscal year 1995 levels and 
help correct some of the current funding inequities which disadvantage 
rural transit programs. Without the funding called for in this 
amendment, many rural transit agencies would be forced to deal with 
steep reductions in service and face enormous financial obstacles just 
to survive. Relief is clearly needed to ensure that residents in rural 
areas are not isolated due to a lack of access to transit.
  Rural residents currently receive a disproportionately small share of 
transit funding, despite the significant need for such assistance. The 
amendment helps close this substantial gap and ensures that rural 
residents receive a more fair share of the transit dollars.
  Clearly, rural transit agencies are much more dependent on Federal 
assistance than those in urban areas. Unfortunately, the proposed 
reductions would have an immediate and detrimental effect on many of 
these rural transit agencies which often provide vital transit service 
for many individuals, including the elderly and the disabled.
  This Member urges support for this important amendment which would 
offer some much needed assistance to America's rural residents.
                             point of order

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Missouri is subject to a point of order as it violates 
clause 2, rule XXI of the House.
  The effect of the Danner amendment would be to set aside $26 million 
for transit assistance in contradiction to ISTEA. The authorizing 
legislation stipulates certain amounts derived by percentage of the 
total amount provided for transit formula grants are to be made 
available for urbanized areas, elderly, and the handicapped and rural 
transit assistance. Under ISTEA, 5.5 percent of the funds made 
available for transit formula grants are for rural transit assistance. 
The effect of the Danner amendment would be to provide $26 million 
solely for rural transit systems right off the top before any set-
asides were derived.
  This amendment would thereby negate the discretion afforded the 
Secretary of the Department of Transportation under the authorizing 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, the Danner amendment amends, goes beyond, perfecting 
legislative provisos permitted to remain and constitutes legislating on 
an appropriations bill, and for this reason we raise the point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman raises the point of order.
  Does the gentlewoman from Missouri wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Ms. DANNER. No. I will accede to the ruling of the Chair, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman wish to have a ruling of the 
Chair?
  Ms. DANNER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment fences $26 million within an aggregate limit of $2 
billion in budget authority to be available solely for a specified 
object. Because no authorization in law supports such a mandatory 
earmarking and because the funds affected are distributed under formula 
in law contrary to that earmarking, the point of order is sustained.
  Are there further amendments to title I?
                   amendment offered by Mrs. Morella

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

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Morella: On line 14 of page 14 of 
     the bill, strike ``$143,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$147,000,000.'';
       On line 19 of page 13 of the bill, strike 
     ``$2,000,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$1,990,000,000''; and
       On line 20 of page 13 of the bill, strike 
     ``$1,784,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$1,774,000,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland 
[Mrs. Morella] for 7\1/2\ minutes in support of her amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My amendment would increase funding for environment and energy 
research at the FAA by $4 million, and it would reduce the Federal 
Aviation Administration funding for the terminal Doppler weather radar 
by $10 million to offset the increase.
  Now, the reason the figures are different--$4 million versus $10 
million--they are different in order to make the amendment outlay 
neutral. My amendment would restore funds for vitally needed area 
research at the FAA, one which the reported bill cuts by 80 percent.
  As chairwoman of the authorization subcommittee over this research, I 
would hope that a higher level of funding could be accommodated, so my 
offset would reduce funds for a system that was not requested by the 
FAA.
                              {time}  2030

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentlewoman that the FAA's 
environmental and energy-related research has been hit hard in this 
bill. We had to make some very difficult choices, and this was one of 
them. The gentlewoman from Maryland has discussed her amendment with 
me. I would hope that if she would consider withdrawing her amendment, 
I will commit to her that I will attempt to find $1 to $1.5 million in 
additional funding for these research activities in conference with the 
Senate later this year.
  I am concerned that a proposed offset to terminal doppler weather 
radar, which is the big issue that we discussed on the Foglietta 
amendment, would undermine safety since it is a safety-related system 
and no one in the body wants to undermine safety.
  Therefore, I pledge to the gentlewoman that I will work with her to 
increase funding for this research in the conference.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, the words of the chairman of the 
subcommittee have always been very truthful and so I thank him for his 
pledge and the comments of the gentleman from Virginia.
  With those assurances, I will withdraw my amendment. Before I do, I 
want to also thank others who have supported this amendment, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is a very good one. As the 
chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee knows, and I think it is 
supported by the ranking member of the subcommittee as well, it is 
fiscal constraints that is the only reason why it cannot be through, 
but I know that when the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] says he is 
going to do something, he comes through. We are confident that he will 
in this case as well.
  Again, we encourage him to find money in the conference for this 
activity. I very much applaud and appreciate the fact that my good 
friend from Maryland has raised the amendment.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the gentlewoman, I 
agree with the chairman that we should attempt to find the funds for 
this kind of activity. As a matter of fact, I think the gentlewoman's 
amendment, as originally crafted, you got it from exactly the right 
place so the chairman himself took $60 million out of that F&E account 
of unobligated dollars. It was not incorrect for you to do it. I am 
sure that the chairman's commitment perhaps to find the $4 million 
somewhere else would be well spent or from that very same account. I 
would agree with the chairman, if he were to do that.
  I thank the gentlewoman for her well-thought-out amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the ranking 

[[Page H7525]]
  member, for his comments on that. The authorization was like $8.5 
million and only $1 million was funded. I will rely on the pledge made 
by the distinguished chairman of the committee. I thank him very much 
for that.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason I asked to do that, Mr. Chairman, is that I 
want to engage the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Virginia, in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, the Montgomery County Airpark is Maryland's fourth 
busiest airport. The airpark is a reliever airport with 108,000 annual 
landings and takeoffs. It is also a center for medical and humanitarian 
services.
  I think the gentleman is probably aware of that.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I am. And I am aware of the many commuter 
flights. Quite frankly, I know that it takes a lot of flights in there, 
that if it was not in operation, they would all go into National and 
create many, many noise problems. I am aware of the use of the 
Montgomery airport.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, the runway at the airpark is 
deteriorating. In fact, the airport has been ordered to reconstruct 
rather than resurface the runway. It only has one runway. The soil 
underneath the runway is eroding and deep large holes dot the landing 
strip, creating a safety risk.
  The airpark is self-supporting, does not depend on taxpayers dollars 
for its daily operations.
  However, like small airports across the country that cannot raise 
funds from user fees, the Montgomery Airpark must rely on the Federal 
Aviation Administration's airport improvement project to fund major 
construction projects.
  Unfortunately, for 3 consecutive years, the much-needed funding, a 
very small amount, for the runway has been denied by the FAA because 
for the past 2 program years, the legislative level of AIP funding has 
been reduced considerably, at least that is what was sent to me in a 
letter.
  The FAA says that all AIP funds for fiscal year 1995 have been 
assigned.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, in 
the transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996, funding 
for the AIP has been increased by 10 percent, from 1.4 to 1.6 billion. 
The question is, how much does the airpark need to restructure the 
runway?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I thank the gentleman for clarifying that statement. 
The runway reconstruction will cost $1.6 million and the project is 
ready to proceed immediately. The gentleman said $1.6 billion has been 
appropriated. This airport would require $1.6 million. It is my 
understanding that the runway project could still be funded, as a 
matter of fact, out of fiscal year 1995 AIP funds.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I agree that this is a necessary and 
worthwhile project. I will encourage the FAA to consider funding it. We 
can have a meeting next week. Quite frankly, if they cannot take it out 
of this year, which I think they may actually be able to find the money 
from this year, certainly I see no reason why they could not take it 
out of next year. I would be glad to meet with them and with the 
gentlewoman.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Transportation Appropriations Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?


                    amendment offered by mr. filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Filner: Page 17, line 8, strike 
     ``$18,000,000,000'' and insert ``$17,990,000,000''.
       Page 23, line 14, strike the colon and all that follows 
     through ``1996'' on line 15.
       Page 23, after line 15, insert the following:
       In addition, for the cost (as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974) of new loan guarantee 
     commitments under section 511 of such Act, $10,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] is 
recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I intend to ask unanimous consent for withdrawing my 
amendment but I want to engage the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation in a brief colloquy about 
a critical component of our Nation's infrastructure--our regional and 
short line railroads.
  I am joined in this effort to highlight the importance of the section 
511 Loan Guarantee Program by colleagues in various regions of our 
Nation.
  We believe that the section 511 Railroad Loan Guarantee Program is a 
wise investment in our infrastructure. This loan guarantee program is 
authorized under section 511 of the Railroad Revitalization Act of 
1976.
  Historically, our investment in road and highways, airports, 
seaports, and railroads has been responsible for creating the most 
advanced and efficient economy in the history of the world. The 511 
program can help an important segment of our transportation system that 
has been largely left out of infrastructure investment programs.
  A very modest investment of about 5 percent of a total loan amount is 
all that is required of the Government to guarantee these loans. An 
appropriation of $10 million will, therefore, generate a $200 million 
investment in our railroads.
  The program also contains no earmarks. Small rail lines throughout 
America--lines such as the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railroad--will 
be able to apply for these loans to rebuild important infrastructure.
  These section 511 loan guarantees represent the type of public/
private partnership this Congress should encourage.
  For a small investment, we can rehabilitate important rail lines, 
ease congestion, and provide jobs. Best of all, these are not grants--
they are loans which will be repaid. The repayment history on this 
program is excellent.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the gentleman from Virginia would 
join me in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, as you may know, many of our regional and short line 
railroad lines--which are still a vital element of our commercial 
infrastructure--often find it difficult to obtain private financing for 
rail line improvements. These private loans are either short-term or 
their interest rates are too high to make this type of investment 
prohibitive. I believe that the Section 511 program--because it is a 
loan program that must be repaid, and because it is leveraged at 20-to-
1--is precisely the type of infrastructure investment program that this 
Congress should promote.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I concur that these loan guarantees have 
proven to be reliable and can be a cost-effective and wise use of 
Federal transportation dollars.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the gentleman would 
favorably consider appropriating funds for this program, if the Senate 
includes funding for Section 511 railroad loan guarantees in their 
bill.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
thank the gentleman from California and our other colleagues for 
bringing this important transportation investment program to the 
attention of the House.
  As the gentleman knows, the proposal to revitalize the loan guarantee 
program was not ready in time to be included in the committee markup. 
However, I can assure the gentleman that I am sensitive to the needs of 
our regional and short line rail lines. I will certainly consider 
funding the 511 loan guarantee program, if it is brought before a 
House-Senate conference.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
Cooley].
  Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity 
to 

[[Page H7526]]
speak about a program vitally important to the railroads in the Second 
District of Oregon--the Section 511 Railroad Loan Guarantee Program.
  Railroad operators have difficulty securing private sector loans for 
construction because half of the construction costs go to labor, and 
the resulting railroad is not attractive collateral for banking 
interests.
  However, I represent an area dependent on agriculture and natural 
resources and we rely on efficient transportation of our goods. For 
many businesses, this means shipping along the Siskiyou Summit rail 
line running north to south in southern Oregon.
  The Section 511 Loan Guarantee Program would allow this railroad to 
construct much-needed repair to its track and tunnels.
  In an age of fiscal responsibility, it is important to note that 
these loans will be paid back to the Federal Government. In fact, the 
Congressional Budget Office has reported that $10 million for the 
section 511 program will result in $200 million in available loans for 
needy railroads.
  I urge the chairman to fight for this worthy program when this bill 
goes to the conference committee.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. LaHood].
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I also support the gentleman's efforts to 
continue funding for the Section 511 Loan Guarantee Program. Currently, 
the Toledo, Peoria and Western Railroad provides much needed rail 
freight transportation service from Fort Madison, IA, across central 
Illinois and into Indiana. In Peoria and central Illinois it provides 
our shippers with important connections to Illinois Central, Burlington 
Northern/Santa Fe, CSX, Union Pacific, Conrail, and several regional 
rail carriers. Unfortunately the TP&W is in financial distress. It is 
my understanding that a successful New York operator of small railroads 
is attempting to purchase the TP&W. The railroad needs modern 
locomotive power and track rehabilitation. The buyer is having 
difficulty convincing private financial institutions to back the total 
project. It would be a tragedy for this railroad's distress caused a 
domino effect on its customers and other regional rail carriers in the 
area. A loan guarantee under the proposal being put forward by 
Congressman Filner and Chairwoman Molinari, of $11 million would allow 
an acquisition and rehabilitation of the TP&W.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for their 
participation. I look forward to working with them to make this happen.
  I would like to just point out to the Chair that for the $10 million 
appropriations that would leverage $200 million worth of loan 
guarantees, we can open a $7 million rail line, with $7 million we can 
open a rail line from Campo to El Centro in California. As Mr. LaHood 
stated, for $11 million we can guarantee to preserve and improve rural 
freight service on the Toledo, Peoria and Western. We can, for $3 
million, guarantee a project for rehabilitation of a bridge over the 
Ohio River. For $13 million, we can make capital improvements and debt 
restructuring for projects in Maine and New Hampshire; $10 million will 
guarantee a project to improve service in the Upper Peninsula of 
Michigan; $30 million beyond will make sure that the State of Missouri 
gets short line railroad improvements. We heard about what $5 million 
can do for the Siskiyou Summit rail line in Oregon, and finally $10 
million would guarantee track rehabilitation in western South Dakota.
  Mr. Chairman, I think these are worthwhile projects. I know the 
chairman will be looking at possible funding of this.
   Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?


               amendment offered by mr. smith of michigan

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan: Page 27, line 
     9, strike ``$1,665,000,000'' and insert ``$1,572,100,000''.
       Page 27, line 16, strike ``$666,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$573,100,000''.
       Page 27, strike lines 22 through 25.
       Page 28, strike lines 3 through 6.
       Page 28, strike lines 15 and 16.
       Page 28, strike lines 21 through 24.
       Page 29, strike lines 3 and 4.
       Page 29, strike lines 7 and 8.
       Page 29, strike lines 13 and 14.
       Page 29, strike lines 21 through 24.
       Page 30, strike lines 1 through 6.

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record?
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  2045

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] will be 
recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes on behalf of his amendment, and the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] will be recognized for 7\1/2\ 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. Mr. Chairman, we could call this a revised Smith-Chabot 
amendment. It is an amendment that negates every person that got up an 
spoke against the first amendment, because this places a 1-year 
moratorium on funding for only those fixed guideway mass transit 
projects, the subways and the el's, that do not have a full funding 
grant agreement, an FFGA, or have not reached a final design phase. It 
saves 92.9 million.
  The Department of Transportation says that mass transit costs for 
existing systems range from $4,800 to $17,000 per rider. Our goal is to 
conserve energy. Our goal is to help people move into where they want 
to move. The fact is that these fixed guideways, these fixed rail 
systems, are not used by the poor people, they are not used by the 
elderly, because they have chosen, according to the Congressional 
Research Service, to use automobiles because it places them at a 
disadvantage in the beginning point, the fixed beginning point, and the 
fixed ending point.
  According to DOT, a new mass transit is not cost-justified unless it 
costs less than $6 per rider per trip. The average cost per rider per 
trip for the 15 projects that this amendment would put on hold is 
$10.50. The fares are expected to make up no more than $2 of the cost. 
That means some taxpayer someplace, either paying taxes to the Federal 
Government or paying taxes to local government, is going to have to 
make up the difference between the $10.50 and the $2.
  The President requested in this budget funding for just 12 new 
starts, yet the Committee on Appropriations proposes funding for 30 new 
starts. The revised amendment would allow further study of these 
projects before committing Federal funding. Mr. Chairman, I would like 
to commend the members of this subcommittee of the Committee on 
Appropriations because they have done wonderful things with this 
proposal that they have brought to the floor. There are no longer the 
pork barrel projects for demonstration projects. I am delighted, the 
American taxpayers are delighted.
  I am simply offering amendments that hopefully will fine tune this 
bill and save taxpayers even more money, or instead, maybe put this 
money to improve some of the highway systems, some of the local bridge 
needs, in the United States, as opposed to starting new mass transit 
subway systems that are going to be so inefficient and cost so many 
American dollars, not only to build but to subsidize in the future.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the Central Oregon and Pacific operates in 
my Oregon congressional district. The railroad also has informed me 
that it would seek a $10 million loan guarantee to rehabilitate the 
Coos Bay Railroad Bridge, if this program were continued. The Coos Bay 
Railroad Bridge is the line between Coos Bay and Eugene--including all 
points east, north, and south--and at present, the railroad hauls over 
10,000 cars per year over the bridge. During the Southern Pacific's 
ownership of the bridge, it threatened to abandon service over this 
line due to the condition of the bridge. The Central Oregon and Pacific 
would like to continue service to and from Coos Bay, but to do so, the 
Coos Bay Bridge needs major rehabilitation. The railroad has pledged 
$600,000 to the project, if Federal loans money is available, and the 
State of Oregon plans to assist in the funding.

[[Page H7527]]

  If the railroad bridge were to fail, all of the traffic to and from 
Coos Bay would be diverted to the highway. This would put the existing 
highway bridge under enormous pressure. A lone guarantee to a private 
company is preferable to tens of millions of dollars in highway grants 
funds to rebuild highway infrastructure.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, but let me just 
say I do appreciate the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] mentioning 
something that has not been mentioned. The fact is, I am going to just 
take a second, this bill has no highway demo projects. Had the 
gentleman not mentioned it, I was not going to say it, and it maybe 
would not even have been mentioned. It used to be, and it is the old 
thing in politics, ``What have you done for me lately''; we took them 
out, and nobody mentioned it, and I thank the gentleman for mentioning 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, it is like what goes on in the Committee on 
Appropriations almost is irrelevant and does not count, and then we 
start when we come out with these bills. It used to be that we did not 
get a highway demo project unless someone was a certain powerful 
Member, or they did not get a project unless they served in a certain 
committee, or if they happened to be powerful and served in a certain 
committee and voted wrong, they did not get it.
  So I appreciate the gentleman mentioning that, Mr.
   Chairman, because this has been a fairly significant reform. We have 
to not only look at what we are doing on the floor, but what we did in 
the committee.

  Mr. Chairman, with regard to the gentleman's amendment, and I 
understand what he is doing, I rise in opposition. The amendment 
really, and this will be a revote, really seeks to reduce funds for 
transit new start projects by $93 million, eliminating 15 projects.
  The gentleman from Michigan suggested that these projects are new 
projects early in the planning and design phases of development. Mr. 
Chairman, all the projects proposed for deletion have received 
appropriations in the past. In addition, funds of each of the projects 
in the amendment are made subject to authorization. The authorizing 
committee will review these projects, just as the Committee on 
Appropriations has done, but in the context of the national highway 
systems bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Smith amendment, 
which deletes the following projects: Canton-Akron, Cincinnati-Northern 
Kentucky, DART, the Dallas North Rail, which is really an 80 percent 
local match, the Dallas Railtran, Los Angeles, San Diego, Memphis, New 
Orleans, Orange County, Sacramento, San Francisco BART, San Juan Treno 
Bano, Tampa-Whitehall, Wisconsin Central. We have already had a vote on 
a similar amendment, but it was defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this. I want to thank the 
gentleman again for what he is trying to do, and also for mentioning 
the fact there are no highway demos in this bill. As long as blood 
pumps through my heart, I will do everything to make sure that when the 
bill comes back from conference, that there are no highway demos in, so 
that the Senators do not put it in, because I think we have done a good 
thing by removing them.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Coleman].
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me only say again, as I understand it, the 
gentleman understands that this amendment would eliminate $93 million 
in funding for again, transit projects, what we just voted on a little 
bit ago, so I also rise in opposition to the amendment. I think it is 
important for everyone to understand that this amendment would 
negatively impact 15 mass transit projects in varying stages of 
development across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just give the Members the States in which this 
amendment would have an adverse effect: Ohio, Texas, Florida, 
Tennessee, Louisiana, New York, California, Illinois, and Wisconsin. 
Some of the projects, by the way, are authorized, so it is interesting 
also that we are now just going willy nilly about those that are 
authorized or not.
  Let me only say in response to the comment by the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the comment about the highway demo projects, I 
pointed out a couple hours ago, Mr. Chairman, that he had indeed not 
included any highway demo projects in the appropriations bill, but I 
think it would be wrong for
 anyone to lead anybody astray on the issue of highway demonstration 
projects.

  This appropriations bill, as we know, leaves intact so far, because 
of the amendments that have been adopted or defeated, leaves intact 539 
highway demonstration projects, so I would say to the chairman, it is 
still true, I guess, that those highway demonstration projects belong 
to who the people are. The gentleman chastised the previous Congress 
for suggesting or saying somewhere in the process that depending on if 
Members were on the right committee or who they were, Members were able 
to get a highway demo project. How did these 539 highway demo projects 
get in the authorization bill? Do Members have to be a member of the 
Committee on Transportation and infrastructure? Do Members have to be 
somebody special or important to that committee?
  Mr. Chairman, I think what we need to do is not criticize the past as 
much as some do, and maybe not hold up on pedestals the present as much 
as we sometimes do, because I am not at all proud of the fact that this 
House, in defeating the Foglietta amendment, refused, refused to say 
that 539 highway demo projects are bad. I think, by the way, a lot of 
people in the United States would disagree with that vote.
  I understand the reasoning and the rationale for it, and there are 
Members that are very fearful that they will not be able to get 
projects in their congressional districts had they voted the other way 
on that particular amendment; but I would only suggest that once again, 
in closing, on this amendment, that we truthfully are doing just what 
we did before, they just reduced the number of projects that he seeks 
to delete. As a famous former President used to say, ``There you go 
again.''
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta].
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Virginia, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this second amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] and urge our colleagues to 
join both the authorizing committee and the Committee on Appropriations 
in opposing this amendment.
  The first amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Smith] lost by a margin of 3 to 1, so I urge my colleagues to reject 
this essentially identical amendment by an equally wide margin. In some 
heavily congested corridors, such as those listed in this bill, the 
appropriate new transportation investment is a new start transit 
investment. We should not favor one new start project over another, as 
this amendment would do, but treat all projects equitably.
  Mr. Chairman, our colleagues know that the authorizing and 
appropriations committees have not always agreed on every issue on this 
floor. Today we stand united in opposing this second Smith amendment, 
just as we opposed the first amendment. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we 
have already had this vote, and I
 urge our colleagues once again to reject this ``us against them'' 
philosophy embodied in the Smith amendment and vote against it.

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINETA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, all I can say, these are very, very important. One of 
the projects will save several lives, and if we strike it, lives will 
be lost.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as our last amendment lost at a three to one 
rate, I will not call for a record rollcall on this, and hope that the 
committee, both the authorizing and the Committee on Appropriations, 
will consider it. 

[[Page H7528]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?


               amendment offered by mr. smith of michigan

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan: Page 24, strike 
     lines 1 through 19.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] will be 
recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes in support of his amendment, and the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] will be recognized for 7\1/2\ 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to eliminate 
funding for the high speed rail project. While the amount in this 
budget is $15 million, this is a foot in the door for projects which, 
according to a GAO report, could cost as much as $12 billion. Three 
copies of the executive summary are available at the desk for your 
review. The taxpayers would end up providing operating subsidies in the 
future in order to keep the projects solvent. Of the $15 million in 
this bill, $3 million goes to Michigan for developing a radio system 
for train traffic control in the Detroit-Chicago corridor. This 
corridor goes right through the heart of my district. I think it is 
important that with a debt approaching $5 trillion that we be willing 
to cut nonessential programs in our own districts. While it would be 
nice to have this technology, the freight operators are working on a 
similar technology on their own in the Pacific Northwest. In fact, 
another $1 million in this bill is to have the State of Washington 
ensure that the system being developed by the private sector is 
compatible with what the Government-subsidized experiment is doing.
  Another $5 million in this bill goes to develop, in the Chicago-St. 
Louis corridor, a more advanced system of locating trains by global 
positioning and feeding that information to a central system. Again, 
the freight operators are already experimenting in this area on their 
own.
  The budget committee recommended elimination of this project. The 
Heritage Foundation made elimination of this project one of its 
priorities in its rolling back Government analysis. Citizens for a 
Sound
 Economy supports its elimination. The reasoning behind these calls for 
elimination is threefold:

  First, these projects will be exceedingly expensive. To upgrade the 
infrastructure along the Detroit-Chicago corridor just to get to a 3-
hour travel time between Chicago and Detroit will cost more than $700 
million. Upgrading trains and track to achieve the lowest of the high 
speed range will cost, for a typical 200-mile corridor, more than $11 
million per mile.
  Second, freight traffic in these corridors will be disrupted. To 
quote the GAO report mentioned earlier, ``freight railroads believe 
that these improvements will generally provide few benefits for their 
freight operations.'' Freight companies do not want to be liable for 
collisions between 100 plus miles per hour passenger trains and slower 
moving freight trains. The GAO report states that freight companies 
want total endemnification from liability for passenger train 
accidents. In my district, Conrail has said that, if a high-speed rail 
corridor were built on the lines it runs between Detroit and Kalamazoo, 
it would sell that line, move traffic out of the corridor, and reserve 
a freight easement
 for some of the less-traveled time on the line. This would reduce the 
availability of freight service for some of Michigan's largest 
companies. The problems of 125 miles per hour passenger trains 
traveling with 60 miles per hour freight trains are evident. The fact 
that the freight operators will go so far as to turn over their lines 
in order to avoid the liability problems says that they feel the 
problems are not surmountable.

  Third, the private sector has shown that these systems would not be 
able to compete with existing air, bus, and auto travel. Several GAO 
reports note that the private sector is unwilling to invest in any 
system without huge Government subsidy. What this means is that the 
resources that would be consumed in producing such a system are valued 
more in the production of other goods and services than they are in the 
production of a high-speed rail system. We need to look at the 
opportunity cost of these systems; $12 billion would provide a lot of 
services which are clearly more highly valued than a high-speed train, 
as witnessed by the fact that no one will put their own money into 
high-speed rail unless the Government guarantees the return.
  Fourth, these systems are clearly regional,
   they are not a role for the Federal Government. There is no reason 
that taxpayers in Montgomery, AL should pay for someone in Michigan to 
ride a 125 miles per hour train instead of flying in an airplane or 
driving their car to get to their destination. In a time when we have a 
$5 trillion Federal deficit, and unfunded liabilities in Social 
Security and Medicare of additional trillions, there is no good reason 
for the Federal Government to be involved in taxing the vast majority 
of Americans so that a few can travel by train instead of plane or car.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] is recognized 
for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consumer.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment which 
would strike all funding for high-speed rail. Again, try to go back and 
think what did these men and women do in the committee?
  Well, the request was for $35 million. We knocked it down to $15 
million, so we are not just starting with this as the beginning figure.
  Second, the committee scrubbed the Federal Railroad Administration's 
high-speed rail budget. The recommended funding for this program is 133 
percent below the administration's request, 40 percent less than the 
1995 enactment level.
  The program is designed to significantly improve, and I use the big S 
word, safety, if high-speed rail becomes a reality in the United 
States. Deleting all remaining funding for this program would be 
detrimental to a number of safety programs, such as removing highway 
rail grade crossing hazards, that the committee continued for funding 
albeit at a lower level.
  Programs funded in fiscal 1995 have just begun. However, the full 
benefits of these programs such as train control demonstrations in 
Michigan--is anybody from Michigan other than Mr. Smith opposed to it? 
I do not think so--and Illinois relies on fiscal year 1996 funding.
  Not providing further appropriations will effectively end these 
programs before there are any achievable benefits. This will basically 
throw away funding both States and the Federal Government have 
contributed, as well as the private investors.
  Other States such as Florida, California, Oregon, Washington, and New 
York have also invested in high-speed rail. This amendment fails to 
consider these investments. High-speed rail service could alleviate the 
need for additional highway and airport safety which are increasing in 
difficulty and expensive to build. We have not built a new airport for 
a long while, and the one we built in Denver I think has been a big 
mistake, and one frankly the Congress probably should have reversed.
  This program will make use of existing rail lines and does not 
require the expense of major new construction. Abolishing the program 
will add to the public cost of transportation as well as potentially 
increase traffic casualties.
  There was a ``Dear Colleague'' letter that went around with regard to 
this. Just to answer that, first, funding of the high-speed rail 
program for corridor development will not be used to lay new track. The 
three corridor programs under way, which will run between Detroit and 
Chicago, Chicago and St. Louis, and Portland and Seattle, will operate 
over existing rail lines and rights-of-ways. No money will be used to 
lay new track.
  Secondly, these corridors do not plan on operating at 150 miles per 
hour or higher. The trains will run at 110 and 125 miles per hour, 
which is significantly higher than the average 79 miles per hour that 
they currently operate. 

[[Page H7529]]
As such, the Government will not need to buy new land or lay new track 
to run at 150 miles per hour.
  Third, the private sector is already investing in these programs. For 
example, on the Portland to Seattle corridor, Burlington Northern and 
Union Pacific are solely financing the upgrading of safety and 
signaling technology along the corridor. This program will cost $20 
million, and the Federal Government's role to evaluate and test will be 
$3 million.
  Fourth, State governments are participating in the development of 
these high-speed rail corridors. I would say that rail is important. 
The program has been cut dramatically from $35 million down to $15 
million. I urge the Members to consider these points and vote against 
the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] to zero out 
high-speed rail programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds for a 
response.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that the cost to finalize this 
project in the Detroit to Chicago would be $700 million. Department of 
Transportation says no. The Federal Government will not pay for it. The 
taxpayers of the particular States that it does through are going to 
have to end up paying for it out of tax money or out of ISTEA money.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Coleman], the ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Let me just say that what it does, this amendment, is cut out all 
funding for any kind of research in the high-speed rail research and 
development program.
  Let me say why that is really a bad idea. First of all, the GAO 
report was cited. I know exactly what the gentleman said. The problem 
with what the gentleman said was he did not read all of the report. I 
wanted to be sure we put into the record the rest of what the General 
Accounting Office said. I will quote from them.
  The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Transportation, in addition 
to following through on research on low-cost grade crossing systems and 
on a high-speed non-electric locomotive, one, focus available Federal 
funds on a limited number of projects to ensure that combined Federal, 
State, and private funding is sufficient to move these projects to 
completion and, two, ensure that FRA, the Federal Railroad 
Administration, has the expertise to evaluate corridor development 
proposals to select those that could provide the most benefits.
  What we are saying is, and I recognize all Americans say, ``We can't 
afford it.'' America can no longer afford research and development. We 
cannot get on the cutting edge of any technologies. We cannot afford 
it. We are too poor as a country.
  Well, that is just not so. A lot of us understand that by the proper 
utilization of our national resources, that we can indeed as a country 
continue to make progress, continue to move forward, continue to say 
something about new technologies. We are not going to have anything to 
say about that technology if we let only foreign countries get into the 
arena. Maybe that is what we say we have to do now, that America can't 
cut it anymore.
  My side of the aisle does not believe that. My side of the aisle 
believes that we can do it, that we have got the men and women in the 
work force in the United States of America to do the job. That this 
country is not being punched around and kicked back on her heels simply 
because some people say we cannot afford research and development. We 
know we can.
  I suggest a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it was part of the budget resolution that this body 
passed just a few weeks ago. The Heritage Foundation made elimination 
of this project one of its priorities in its rolling back government 
analysis. Citizens for a Sound Economy support this amendment. The 
National Taxpayers Union is scoring this amendment. The problem is if 
we push through this body funding for high-speed rail and jeopardize 
the freight systems that are now operating in these areas, then I think 
we are giving a great disadvantage to our constituents in the long run.
  These projects will be exceedingly expensive. To upgrade the 
infrastructure along the Detroit-Chicago corridor, for example, is 
going to cost over $11 million per mile. That money is not going to 
come from the Federal Government according to the Department of 
Transportation. It is going to come from taxpayers, by the citizens, or 
it is going to come from funding out of their ISTEA money that they are 
allocated.
  Conrail, when I talked to them this afternoon, says that if high-
speed rail goes in on the track they own, they want to sell that track 
and they will start transporting their freight from the Detroit area 
through Toledo to their main east-west corridor.
  Freight traffic in these corridors will be disrupted. To quote the 
GAO report mentioned earlier, ``Freight railroads believe that these 
improvements will generally provide few benefits for their freight 
operations, and freight companies do not want the liability for the 
collisions, even if it is only 120 or 125 miles an hour compared to 
their average 62 miles an hour.''
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. This is the amendment which would eliminate expenditures 
which are important to the future transportation needs of the country. 
It would essentially cripple, or hurt, an attempt to run a high-speed 
rail system from Detroit to Chicago to Milwaukee to St. Louis.
  It is a program which affords great advantages to this country. It is 
a program which is supported by our Governor, a friend of my dear 
friend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith]. It is a program which 
is geared at enabling this country to finally begin to move towards 
getting a good high-speed rail system for this country. It is not one 
which is going to add to the bureaucracy or the number of government 
employees. It is one that is going to be run by the people using this 
as seed money only.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 30 
seconds.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, in summary, we have got to start 
someplace. Three hundred million dollars is not going to cripple the 
system. The system is going to end up costing $700 million. The Federal 
Government is not going to pay for it.
  I would just ask everybody in mass transportation, with the 
recommendation of the Committee on the Budget, that we phase out 
subsidies for all mass transportation, that we eliminate funding for 
high-speed rail. Localities and States better think very carefully 
before they start digging themselves a hole to obligate their future 
and their taxpayers' future.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], a member of the committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf], the chairman, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], the 
ranking member, for their strong leadership in this area.
  Mr. Chairman, this vote is critically important to New York State and 
the northeast corridor, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this 
amendment.
  We have overcrowded airports in New York and in the northeast 
corridor. This is the best way to get people moved around. This has 
already been reduced from $35 million to $15 million. There is 
demonstrated support for high-speed rail in New York and in the rest of 
the northeast corridor. This is Governor Pataki's top appropriations 
legislative priority at the Federal level. I urge a strong vote in 
opposition to this amendment and a strong vote in support of high-speed 
rail.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by my 
fellow colleague 

[[Page H7530]]
from Michigan [Mr. Smith]. I have been interested in high speed rail 
for many years because I believe wise investments in technology and 
transportation infrastructure pay off in economic development, job 
creation, and higher productivity.
  I recognize the motive of the Smith amendment. In an era with record 
Federal deficits, we need to be fiscally prudent. However, by building 
on what we have, high speed rail is within reach. We need to encourage 
incremental improvements that will increase train speed: things like 
improving grade crossings, signal systems, tracks, and cost-efficient 
equipment and locomotion. We should target limited federal resources to 
a few deserving projects.
  Improvements related to the high speed rail concept are already being 
implemented. Earlier this year in fact, the U.S. Department of 
Transportation awarded a $6 million grant to the Michigan Department of 
Transportation [MDOT] for further safety and grade crossing 
improvements on a 71 mile stretch of rail in Michigan. These 
improvements will allow for an increase in speed along the route and 
will reduce the amount of travel time. I strongly supported the State's 
application and have had many discussions with the Director of MDOT 
about this issue since Michigan has been a leader in this area.
  High speed rail means more and better options for the travelling 
public, both business and pleasure, in the areas surrounding the 
station. High speed rail also provides a more balanced transportation 
network that reflects growing environmental and energy concerns.
  Being from Michigan and thereby impacted by the Detroit and Chicago 
rail corridor, linking the third and fifth largest metropolitan areas, 
I have examined many reports regarding the feasibility and cost of high 
speed rail.
  Many independent studies have shown that the Detroit-Chicago rail 
corridor is an excellent candidate for high speed rail. Significant 
economic and employment opportunities are expected to sprout along the 
route. Just last month, a group in Chicago--Environmental Law and 
Policy Center--released a study concluding that high speed rail is 
financially feasible and will create jobs throughout the Midwest.
  As this country proceeds with high speed rail development, we need to 
move cautiously. We need to know what we are buying, who is paying for 
it, and what the benefits are. We also need to examine potential 
downsides and legitimate concerns about high speed, particularly safety 
and take the steps necessary to address those concerns.
  Most people agree that it is more prudent to move in small, 
incremental steps as we develop the high speed rail system. I believe 
the committee's recommendation of $15 million is a very prudent and 
appropriate level which will keep the effort moving forward to the 
benefit of our nation's infrastructure and the travelling public.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Smith 
amendment.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment which strikes $15 million from the High-Speed Rail Program.
  Mr. Chairman, this practical program will reduce the cost and improve 
the safety and performance of high speed rail projects in the United 
States. It is specifically targeted at safe, economical, and 
environmentally-friendly all weather service by the year 2000 in 
selected corridors, in all areas of the Nation. Such service alleviates 
the need for additional highway and airport capacity which all Members 
know is increasingly difficult to obtain and very expensive.
  Specifically, this program is targeted at supporting future and 
relatively modest upgrades for existing rail lines. These upgrades have 
been proposed by a number of States with congested intercity 
transportation corridors. In fact, there is a project now underway in 
Michigan, that is partially funded by the $15 million, which will use 
new technology to provide high speed train control and significantly 
enhanced grade crossing safety at about half the cost of conventional 
methods beginning as early as 1996.
  Mr. Chairman, the Federal role proposed here is to simply provide a 
technology base. It is unreasonable and uneconomical to expect 15 or 20 
States to each undertake technology development programs. Moreover, 
efforts are well coordinated with freight railroads to assure both 
practicality and ultimate ability to implement. Finally, an incremental 
approach minimizes risk to taxpayers and maximizes value.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. In terms of technology 
advancement, it is a step backward and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Are there further amendments to title I?

                              {time}  2115

  If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:
                                TITLE II

                            RELATED AGENCIES

       ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Architectural and 
     Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, as authorized by 
     section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 
     $3,656,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received for publications and training expenses.
                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Transportation 
     Safety Board, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
     aircraft; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at 
     rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate 
     equivalent to the rate for a GS-18; uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902), 
     $38,774,000, of which not to exceed $1,000 may be used for 
     official reception and representation expenses.
                             Emergency Fund

       For necessary expenses of the National Transportation 
     Safety Board for accident investigations, including hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; services as authorized 
     by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed 
     the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for a GS-18; 
     uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902), $160,802 to remain available until 
     expended.
                     INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Interstate Commerce 
     Commission, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 
     U.S.C. 1343(b), $13,379,000, of which $4,984,000 shall be for 
     severance and closing costs: Provided, That of the fees 
     collected in fiscal year 1996 by the Interstate Commerce 
     Commission pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9701, one-twelfth of 
     $8,300,000 of those fees collected shall be made available 
     for each month the Commission remains in existence during 
     fiscal year 1996.
                   Payments for Directed Rail Service


                      (limitation on obligations)

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

                      Panama Canal Revolving Fund

       For administrative expenses of the Panama Canal Commission, 
     including not to exceed $11,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses of the Board; not to exceed $5,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses of the 
     Secretary; and not to exceed $30,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses of the Administrator, 
     $50,741,000, to be derived from the Panama Canal Revolving 
     Fund: Provided, That funds available to the Panama Canal 
     Commission shall be available for the purchase of not to 
     exceed 38 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only 
     (including large heavy-duty vehicles used to transport 
     Commission personnel across the Isthmus of Panama), the 
     purchase price of which shall not exceed $19,500 per vehicle.
  Are there amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:

                               TITLE III

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS


                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 301. During the current fiscal year applicable 
     appropriations to the Department of Transportation shall be 
     available for maintenance and operation of aircraft; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; purchase of liability 
     insurance for motor vehicles operating in foreign countries 
     on official department business; and uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
       Sec. 302. Funds for the Panama Canal Commission may be 
     apportioned notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1341 to the extent 
     necessary to permit payment of such pay increases for 
     officers or employees as may be authorized by 

[[Page H7531]]
     administrative action pursuant to law that are not in excess of 
     statutory increases granted for the same period in 
     corresponding rates of compensation for other employees of 
     the Government in comparable positions.
       Sec. 303. Funds appropriated under this Act for 
     expenditures by the Federal Aviation Administration shall be 
     available (1) except as otherwise authorized by the Act of 
     September 30, 1950 (20 U.S.C. 236-244), for expenses of 
     primary and secondary schooling for dependents of Federal 
     Aviation Administration personnel stationed outside the 
     continental United States at costs for any given area not in 
     excess of those of the Department of Defense for the same 
     area, when it is determined by the Secretary that the 
     schools, if any, available in the locality are unable to 
     provide adequately for the education of such dependents, and 
     (2) for transportation of said dependents between schools 
     serving the area that they attend and their places of 
     residence when the Secretary, under such regulations as may 
     be prescribed, determines that such schools are not 
     accessible by public means of transportation on a regular 
     basis.
       Sec. 304. Appropriations contained in this Act for the 
     Department of Transportation shall be available for services 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals 
     not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for an 
     Executive Level IV.
       Sec. 305. None of the funds for the Panama Canal Commission 
     may be expended unless in conformance with the Panama Canal 
     Treaties of 1977 and any law implementing those treaties.
       Sec. 306. None of the funds in this Act shall be used for 
     the planning or execution of any program to pay the expenses 
     of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal parties intervening 
     in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
       Sec. 307. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal 
     year, nor may any be transferred to other appropriations, 
     unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 308. The Secretary of Transportation may enter into 
     grants, cooperative agreements, and other transactions with 
     any person, agency, or instrumentality of the United States, 
     any unit of State or local government, any educational 
     institution, and any other entity in execution of the 
     Technology Reinvestment Project authorized under the Defense 
     Conversion, Reinvestment and Transition Assistance Act of 
     1992 and related legislation: Provided, That the authority 
     provided in this section may be exercised without regard to 
     section 3324 of title 31, United States Code.
       Sec. 309. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract 
     pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures 
     are a matter of public record and available for public 
     inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing 
     law, or under existing Executive order issued pursuant to 
     existing law.
       Sec. 310. (a) For fiscal year 1996 the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall distribute the obligation limitation for 
     Federal-aid highways by allocation in the ratio which sums 
     authorized to be appropriated for Federal-aid highways that 
     are apportioned or allocated to each State for such fiscal 
     year bear to the total of the sums authorized to be 
     appropriated for Federal-aid highways that are apportioned or 
     allocated to all the States for such fiscal year.
       (b) During the period October 1 through December 31, 1995, 
     no State shall obligate more than 25 per centum of the amount 
     distributed to such State under subsection (a), and the total 
     of all State obligations during such period shall not exceed 
     12 per centum of the total amount distributed to all States 
     under such subsection.
       (c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) provide all States with authority sufficient to prevent 
     lapses of sums authorized to be appropriated for Federal-aid 
     highways that have been apportioned to a State;
       (2) after August 1, 1996, revise a distribution of the 
     funds made available under subsection (a) if a State will not 
     obligate the amount distributed during that fiscal year and 
     redistribute sufficient amounts to those States able to 
     obligate amounts in addition to those previously distributed 
     during that fiscal year giving priority to those States 
     having large unobligated balances of funds apportioned under 
     sections 103(e)(4), 104, and 144 of title 23, United States 
     Code, and under sections 1013(c) and 1015 of Public Law 102-
     240;
       (3) not distribute amounts authorized for administrative 
     expenses and funded from the administrative takedown 
     authorized by section 104(a), title 23 U.S.C., the Federal 
     lands highway program, the intelligent vehicle highway 
     systems program, and amounts made available under sections 
     1040, 1047, 1064, 6001, 6005, 6006, 6023, and 6024 of Public 
     Law 102-240, and 49 U.S.C. 5316, 5317, and 5338: Provided, 
     That amounts made available under section 6005 of Public Law 
     102-240 shall be subject to the obligation limitation for 
     Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs 
     under the head ``Federal-Aid Highways'' in this Act;
       (d) During the period October 1 through December 31, 1995, 
     the aggregate amount of obligations under section 157 of 
     title 23, United States Code, for projects covered under 
     section 147 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 
     1978, section 9 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981, 
     sections 131(b), 131(j), and 404 of Public Law 97-424, 
     sections 1061, 1103 through 1108, 4008, and 6023(b)(8) and 
     6023(b)(10) of Public Law 102-240, and for projects 
     authorized by Public Law 99-500 and Public Law 100-17, shall 
     not exceed $277,431,840.
       (e) During the period August 2 through September 30, 1996, 
     the aggregate amount which may be obligated by all States 
     pursuant to paragraph (d) shall not exceed 2.5 percent of the 
     aggregate amount of funds apportioned or allocated to all 
     States--
       (1) under sections 104 and 144 of title 23, United States 
     Code, and 1013(c) and 1015 of Public Law 102-240, and
       (2) for highway assistance projects under section 103(e)(4) 
     of title 23, United States Code,
     which would not be obligated in fiscal year 1996 if the total 
     amount of the obligation limitation provided for such fiscal 
     year in this Act were utilized.
       (f) Paragraph (e) shall not apply to any State which on or 
     after August 1, 1996, has the amount distributed to such 
     State under paragraph (a) for fiscal year 1996 reduced under 
     paragraph (c)(2).
       Sec. 311. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     for salaries and expenses of more than one hundred and ten 
     political and Presidential appointees in the Department of 
     Transportation: Provided, That none of the personnel covered 
     by this provision may be assigned on temporary detail outside 
     the Department of Transportation.
       Sec. 312. The limitation on obligations for the programs of 
     the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any 
     authority under 49 U.S.C. 5338, previously made available for 
     obligation, or to any other authority previously made 
     available for obligation under the discretionary grants 
     program.
       Sec. 313. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
       Sec. 314. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     1996 pay raises for programs funded in this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act or 
     previous appropriations Acts.
       Sec. 315. Funds received by the Research and Special 
     Programs Administration from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources 
     for expenses incurred for training and for reports' 
     publication and dissemination may be credited to the Research 
     and Special Programs account.
       Sec. 316. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to plan, finalize, or implement regulations that would 
     establish a vessel traffic safety fairway less than five 
     miles wide between the Santa Barbara Traffic Separation 
     Scheme and the San Francisco Traffic Separation Scheme.
       Sec. 317. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     airports may transfer, without consideration, to the Federal 
     Aviation Administration (FAA) instrument landing systems 
     (along with associated approach lighting equipment and runway 
     visual range equipment) which conform to FAA design and 
     performance specifications, the purchase of which was 
     assisted by a Federal airport aid program, airport 
     development aid program or airport improvement program grant. 
     The FAA shall accept such equipment, which shall thereafter 
     be operated and maintained by the FAA in accordance with 
     agency criteria.
       Sec. 318. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to award a multiyear contract for production end items that 
     (1) includes economic order quantity or long lead time 
     material procurement in excess of $10,000,000 in any one year 
     of the contract or (2) includes a cancellation charge greater 
     than $10,000,000 which at the time of obligation has not been 
     appropriated to the limits of the government's liability or 
     (3) includes a requirement that permits performance under the 
     contract during the second and subsequent years of the 
     contract without conditioning such performance upon the 
     appropriation of funds: Provided, That this limitation does 
     not apply to a contract in which the Federal Government 
     incurs no financial liability from not buying additional 
     systems, subsystems, or components beyond the basic contract 
     requirements.
       Sec. 319. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     made available for planning and executing a passenger 
     manifest program by the Department of Transportation that 
     only applies to United States flag carriers.
       Sec. 320. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the provisions 
     of section 1038(d) of Public Law 102-240.
       Sec. 321. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     except for fixed guideway modernization projects, funds made 
     available by this Act under ``Federal Transit Administration, 
     Discretionary grants'' for projects specified in this Act or 
     identified in reports accompanying this Act not obligated by 
     September 30, 1998, shall be made available for other 
     projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
       Sec. 322. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     funds appropriated before October 1, 1993, under any section 
     of chapter 53 of title 49 U.S.C., that remain available for 
     expenditure may be transferred to and administered under the 
     most recent appropriation heading for any such section.
       Sec. 323. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to implement or enforce regulations that would result in the 
     withdrawal of a slot from an air carrier at O'Hare 
     International Airport under section 93.223 of title 14 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations in excess of the total slots 
     withdrawn from that 

[[Page H7532]]
     air carrier as of October 31, 1993 if such additional slot is to be 
     allocated to an air carrier or foreign air carrier under 
     section 93.217 of title 14 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       Sec. 324. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended to design, construct, erect, modify 
     or otherwise place any sign in any State relating to any 
     speed limit, distance, or other measurement on any highway if 
     such sign establishes such speed limit, distance, or other 
     measurement using the metric system.
       Sec. 325. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, 
     tolls collected for motor vehicles on any bridge connecting 
     the boroughs of Brooklyn, New York, and Staten Island, New 
     York, shall continue to be collected for only those vehicles 
     exiting from such bridge in Staten Island.
       Sec. 326. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     compensate in excess of 335 technical staff years under the 
     federally-funded research and  development center contract 
     between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center 
     for Advanced Aviation Systems Development during fiscal year 
     1996.
       Sec. 327. Funds provided in this Act for the Department of 
     Transportation working capital fund (WCF) shall be reduced by 
     $10,000,000, which limits fiscal year 1996 WCF obligational 
     authority for elements of the Department of Transportation 
     funded in this Act to no more than $92,231,000: Provided, 
     That such reductions from the budget request shall be 
     allocated by the Department of Transportation to each 
     appropriations account in proportion to the amount included 
     in each account for the working capital fund.
       Sec. 328. Funds received by the Federal Highway 
     Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal 
     Railroad Administration from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources 
     for expenses incurred for training may be credited 
     respectively to the Federal Highway Administration's 
     ``Limitation on General Operating Expenses'' account, the 
     Federal Transit Administration's ``Transit Planning and 
     Research'' account, and to the Federal Railroad 
     Administration's ``Railroad Safety'' account, except for 
     State rail safety inspectors participating in training 
     pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20105.
       Sec. 329. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.
       Sec. 330. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulations pursuant 
     to title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings 
     Act (49 U.S.C. 32901, et seq.) prescribing corporate average 
     fuel economy standards for automobiles, as defined in such 
     title, in any model year that differs from standards 
     promulgated for such automobiles prior to enactment of this 
     section.
       Sec. 332. Notwithstanding 15 U.S.C. 631 et seq. and 10 
     U.S.C. 2301 et seq. as amended, the United States Coast Guard 
     acquisition of 47-foot Motor Life Boats for fiscal years 1995 
     through 2000 shall be subject to full and open competition 
     for all U.S. shipyards. Accordingly, the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulations (FAR) (including but not limited to FAR Part 19), 
     shall not apply to the extent they are inconsistent with a 
     full and open competition.
       Sec. 333. None of the funds in this Act may be used for 
     planning, engineering, design, or construction of a sixth 
     runway at the new Denver International Airport, Denver, 
     Colorado: Provided, That this provision shall not apply in 
     any case where the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration determines, in writing, that safety conditions 
     warrant obligation of such funds.
       Sec. 334. (a) Section 5302(a)(1) of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), ``that extends the economic life 
     of the bus for at least 5 years''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (C), ``that extends the economic life 
     of the bus for at least 8 years''.
       (b) The amendments made by this section shall not take 
     effect before March 31, 1996.
       Sec. 335. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received by 
     the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data 
     products, for necessary expenses incurred pursuant to the 
     provisions of section 6006 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, may be credited to the 
     Federal-aid highways account for the purpose of reimbursing 
     the Bureau for such expenses: Provided, That such funds shall 
     not be subject to the obligation limitation for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction.
       Sec. 336. Of the budgetary resources provided to the 
     Department of Transportation (excluding the Maritime 
     Administration) during fiscal year 1996, $25,000,000 are 
     permanently canceled: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall reduce the existing field office 
     structure, and to the extent practicable collocate the 
     Department's surface transportation field offices: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary may for the purpose of 
     consolidation of offices and facilities other than those at 
     Headquarters, after notification to and approval of the House 
     and Senate Committees on Appropriations, transfer the funds 
     made available by this Act for civilian and military 
     personnel compensation and benefits and other administrative 
     expenses to other appropriations made available to the 
     Department of Transportation as the Secretary may designate, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations of funds 
     to which transferred: Provided further, That no appropriation 
     shall be increased or decreased by more than ten per centum 
     by all such transfers.
       Sec. 337. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to 
     transfer funds appropriated for any office of the Office of 
     the Secretary to ``Rental payments'' for any expense 
     authorized by that appropriation in excess of the amounts 
     provided in this Act: Provided, That prior to any such 
     transfer, notification shall be provided to the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 338. None of the funds in this Act may be obligated or 
     expended for employee training which: (a) does not meet 
     identified needs for knowledge, skills and abilities bearing 
     directly upon the performance of official duties; (b) 
     contains elements likely to induce high levels of emotional 
     response or psychological stress in some participants; (c) 
     does not require prior employee notification of the content 
     and methods to be used in the training and written end of 
     course evaluations; (d) contains any methods or content 
     associated with religious or quasi-religious belief systems 
     or ``new age'' belief systems as defined in Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2, 
     1988; (e) is offensive to, or designed to change, 
     participants' personal values or lifestyle outside the 
     workplace; or (f) includes content related to human 
     immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome 
     (HIV/AIDS) other than that necessary to make employees more 
     aware of the medical ramifications of HIV/AIDS and the 
     workplace rights of HIV-positive employees.
       ``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 U.S.C. 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 incompatible with the safe and efficient use 
     of the airport.''.
       Sec. 340. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this 
     section, 180 days after attaining eligibility for an 
     immediate retirement annuity under 5 U.S.C. 8336 or 5 U.S.C. 
     8412, an individual shall not be eligible to receive 
     compensation under 5 U.S.C. 8105-8106 resulting from work 
     injuries associated with employment with the Department of 
     Transportation (excluding the Maritime Administration).
       (b) An individual who, on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, is eligible to receive an immediate annuity described in 
     subsection (a) may continue to receive such compensation 
     under 5 U.S.C. 8105-8106 until March 31, 1996.
       Sec. 341. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to pay the salaries and expenses of any individual to arrange 
     tours of scientists or engineers employed by or working for 
     the People's Republic of China, to hire citizens of the 
     People's Republic of China to participate in research 
     fellowships sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration 
     or other modal administrations of the Department of 
     Transportation, or to provide training or any form of 
     technology transfer to scientists or engineers employed by or 
     working for the People's Republic of China.
       Sec. 342. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     support Federal Transit Administration's field operations and 
     oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
     Authority in any location other than from the Washington, 
     D.C. metropolitan area.
       Sec. 343. (a) Subsection (b) of section 5333 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is hereby repealed.
       (b) The repeal made by this section shall take effect on 
     the date of enactment of this Act. Any labor protection 
     agreement or arrangement entered into or imposed pursuant to 
     the subsection repealed by this subsection, or section 13(c) 
     of the Federal Transit Act, prior to such date of enactment 
     shall be terminated, as of such date, and shall have no 
     further force or effect, and no rights or duties shall exist 
     on the basis of any such labor protection agreement or 
     arrangement entered into or imposed pursuant to such 
     subsection or such section 13(c) notwithstanding the 
     provisions of any law.
       Sec. 344. In addition to the sums made available to the 
     Department of Transportation, $8,421,000 shall be available 
     on the effective date of legislation transferring certain 
     rail and motor carrier functions from the Interstate Commerce 
     Commission to the Department of Transportation: Provided, 
     That such amount shall be available only to the extent 
     authorized by law: Provided further, That of the fees 
     collected pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9701 in fiscal year 1996 by 
     the successors of the Interstate Commerce Commission, one-
     twelfth of $8,300,000 of those fees 

[[Page H7533]]
     shall be made available for each month during fiscal year 1996 that the 
     successors of the Interstate Commerce Commission carry out 
     the transferred rail and motor carrier functions.
       Sec. 345. The Secretary of Transportation shall not 
     authorize funding of additional Federal-aid projects for the 
     Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project in Boston, 
     Massachusetts, unless a financial plan is submitted by the 
     Commonwealth of Massachusetts by October 30, 1995, and 
     approved by the Secretary: Provided, That for each fiscal 
     year thereafter until the project is complete, the financial 
     plan shall be updated bi-annually and submitted to the 
     Secretary by February 1 and August 1 of each fiscal year and 
     further funding shall not be approved by the Secretary until 
     the Secretary approves such updated plans: Provided further, 
     That each such financial plan shall be based on a detailed 
     annual estimate of the cost to complete the remaining 
     elements of the project including all commitments contained 
     in the approved project environmental documents, regardless 
     of whether these elements are to be federally funded: 
     Provided further, That the financial plan shall be based on 
     reasonable assumptions of future cost increases, as 
     determined by the Secretary, and shall identify the sources 
     of available and proposed funding necessary to finance 
     completion of the project while considering other State 
     transportation needs.
                             point of order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against 
page 54, line 3 through line 24.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this provision violates rule XXI, clause 
2(b) of the rules of the House because it changes existing law by 
imposing additional legislative requirements regarding funding.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order 
stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I guess the gentleman does think it says 
that, because I think the parliamentarian read it carefully. It is my 
understanding that this language will be carried in another provision 
some other time?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, we have committed for the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure to deal with the issue. We have not 
agreed to this precise language.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, that is fine. I take the word of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania. I have no objection, and if the gentleman 
says that it violates a point of order, I believe him and that is it. I 
concede it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman concede the point of order?
  Mr. WOLF. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is sustained.
  Are there amendments to title III?


                 amendment no. 17 offered by mr. nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler: Page 46, lines 3 through 
     7.
       Redesignate subsequent sections of title III of the bill 
     accordingly.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am seeking to strike from this bill an 
unfunded Federal mandate which singles out New York City from the rest 
of the country. This is not the first time I have gotten up with this 
amendment; the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] and I have had 
a colloquy on this amendment for several years now. She has been on the 
other side of this issue.
  This legislation prohibits New York City from charging two-way tolls 
on the Verrazano Narrows Bridge between Staten Island and Brooklyn. 
This is the only provision of its kind in Federal law in the entire 
United States.
  Mr. Chairman, currently having a one-way toll on the Verrazano 
Narrows Bridges creates a pathway into the central business district of 
New York City by going through Staten Island and Brooklyn into the 
city, and going out of the city through the Holland Tunnel to New 
Jersey from Manhattan.
  Mr. Chairman, commuters and commercial vehicles which use this 
pathway can avoid paying any tolls at all, because the Verrazano 
Narrows Bridge tolls are turned around in the opposite direction from 
the other tolls on the bridges and tunnels across the Hudson River. 
This loophole has cost our transportation agencies that support mass 
transit between $7 million and $8.2 million annually.
  Since we are discussing transportation appropriations, let me turn my 
attention for a moment from this legislative issue to one of actual 
transportation funding. Do any of my colleagues feel so strongly that 
they would be willing to make up those lost dollars out of their 
State's appropriation or to increase the appropriation to New York in 
this bill by that amount of money?
  We are not talking about money being paid by my colleagues' 
constituents or by Federal taxpayers; we are talking about money New 
Yorkers pay to our local transportation agencies for our local 
transportation system. By what right does Congress tell us how to raise 
money locally and which way, and how, to charge tolls on a local 
bridge?
  In addition to costing us between $7 million and $8.2 million a year 
in mass transit funds at a time when Federal mass transit subsidies as 
the gentleman from Michigan noted are being greatly reduced, this 
unfunded mandate diverts vehicles into lower Manhattan because of the 
traffic pathway it opens up in which vehicles going to Brooklyn go 
through Manhattan to get out in order to avoid the toll, thus greatly 
increasing air pollution and creating two hot spots. That is to say, 
particular concentrations of air pollution which creates large pockets 
of carbon monoxide concentration.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford this kind of increased air pollution 
in New York City. We are already a nonattainment area under the Federal 
Clean Air Act and are subject to penalties by the Federal Government, 
the EPA, if we do not comply and attain ambient air quality standards 
within the time limit set. But without this amendment, Congress will 
not permit us to take action to reduce the congestion and to clean up 
our problem.
  In addition to being a cause of increased air pollution, in addition 
to being an inconvenience for local residents in Brooklyn and 
Manhattan, lower Manhattan especially, this congestion is choking off 
maritime commerce from the Red Hook and South Brooklyn marine terminals 
in Brooklyn, as well as from numerous small commercial light 
manufacturing businesses on the Brooklyn waterfront and in Industrial 
Sunset Park in Brooklyn. We are losing jobs and it will only get worse.
  A small minority in our city want to use the Federal Government to 
circumvent the popular will of the majority in our city. The sponsors 
of this provision, which my amendment seeks to eliminate from the 
Federal law, know that left alone, New Yorkers will do what is in our 
own best interest and eliminate the one-way tolls.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of my amendment which simply removes the 
Federal mandate to have one-way tolls on this particular bridge and 
allows local government to make its own decision. This unfunded mandate 
has clogged our streets, killed local businesses, and destroyed the 
quality of life in our cities.
  Unless we repeal this provision, Congress will continue to mandate 
the continued deterioration of these areas. Do not help them do it. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment and remove this 
detrimental provision from the law.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. Chairman, one-way toll collection on the Verrazona Bridge is 
necessary for a number of reasons. If this language were stricken as 
proposed, traffic from New York City to Staten Island would increase 
dramatically. Traffic in Staten Island would become more entangled as 
traffic emanating in New Jersey would cross the bridge into Staten 
Island.
  Ths system has been in place since fiscal year 1994 and has been 
included in each appropriation bill since that time. The issue has been 
debated time and again, and frankly nothing has changed to warrant the 
deletion of the language except for the fact that the language has been 
successful; therefore, there has been no change; therefore, there is no 
need to delete.
  Mr. Chairman, the system is proven to work and an environmental 
impact analysis has been conducted to support the one-way toll 
collection on this bridge. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the 

[[Page H7534]]
amendment to strike the committee language. We have had it for a number 
of years. I strongly urge a no vote.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, just very quickly, I sympathize with my colleague from 
New York, Mr. Nadler, for a very simple reason. A number of our 
colleagues in the House over the years have had problems of this type 
that we have tried very hard in the committee to work with. I would 
hope that the authorizing committee will be able to work with the 
gentleman, although from time to time it has been necessary for our own 
Committee on Appropriations to deal with these issues.
  Mr. Chairman, because this language is in the appropriations bill, 
the gentleman correctly approaches the other Members on the floor of 
the House with respect to this particular language in the 
appropriations, because I do not think he has anywhere else to go.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I certainly support his effort. I 
would only say to the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], 
I recall, indeed, some problems that the chairman has had a Route 66 
and other areas around the regions that he represents with respect to 
traffic problems.
  The one that is cited by our colleague may indeed be the case. While 
we have not personally held hearings, while I have not heard of any 
hearings on this issue before the Committee on Appropriations, it is 
exactly the reason that many of these issues should have been addressed 
by the authorizing committee. But I will say to my colleague from New 
York that I think a lot of Members will have an understanding about the 
problem.
  I hope that those going in the other direction, which would occur 
should his amendment prevail, we also will be able to hear from them.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which 
would have severe and obviously outrageous negative impacts on my 
constituents by ending the current one-way westbound collection of 
tolls on the Verrazano Narrows Bridge and instead adopt an eastbound 
collection of the tolls.
  I should remind Members, as the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], 
the chairman, did, that this attempt to reverse the toll collection has 
been turned back by Congress every year since it was first brought to 
the House floor in 1986. And with good reason, because there are 
clearly increased congestion and environmental concerns brought on by 
creating an eastbound toll collection.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues from New York contends that the current 
traffic pattern encourages traffic congestion in Manhattan. Let us be 
honest. This will not change the traffic nightmare in Manhattan or 
Brooklyn. Traffic in New York City has increased from 3 percent to 10 
percent since 1984. For anyone familiar with New York City traffic, one 
needs to look no further than the reconstruction on the Gowanus and 
Brooklyn-Queens Expressways to determine whether the Verrazano Narrows 
toll is ultimately responsible.
  To try to blame the Verrazano Narrows toll for increased traffic in 
Brooklyn, I would suggest, is like trying to blame the prolonged period 
of the OJ trial on the jurors. There is a good problem there, but the 
solution that you have advanced and the culprit you have identified has 
absolutely nothing to do with it.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, should the Nadler amendment be made in order, 
traffic in New Jersey would increase dramatically. Perhaps the 
Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority's own statement of 2 years ago 
puts it best when it stated that ``one-way eastbound toll collection, 
eastbound traffic diverted away from the Verrazano Narrows Bridge would 
add to existing congestion at the eastbound Holland Tunnel toll 
plaza.''
  But perhaps the single most important issue in this debate is the air 
quality and environmental health concerns in which past studies have 
all concluded the same thing: Staten Islanders who pay a 
disproportionate share of their toll on the Verrazano Narrows Bridge to 
subsidize mass transit and subways in the Borough of Manhattan will 
suffer from significantly increased levels of carbon monoxide.
  In closing, this is an issue which is critically important to my 
constituents and to tens of thousands of commuters who use the 
Verrazano Narrows Bridge to get to and from work every day, while 
subsidizing the subways in Manhattan. In my mind the only acceptable 
change to the westbound toll, and maybe my friend, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Nadler] will agree with me, is no toll at all.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague's 
amendment.
  The gentleman from New York and I represent several neighborhoods in 
Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn that bear the brunt of the curren0,t 
wrong-headed toll policy on the Verrazano Bridge.
  First, our colleagues from around the country should ask themselves--
why Congress is meddling in a local traffic dispute.
  That's a good question--especially when you consider that year after 
year, the mandate of the one-way toll from Brooklyn to Staten Island 
was put in place over the objections of our city and State governments, 
and all but one of our city's congressional representatives.
  Here's why the one-way toll continues to be a terrible idea:
  First, it wastes money. Because of toll evaders, New York is losing 
$7 million in revenues. Revenues which are desperately needed 
elsewhere.
  Second, it's an environmental disaster. The diverted traffic into my 
district has caused air pollution hot spots.
  Third, the quality of life in these neighborhoods continues to 
deteriorate. Heavy trucks are rattling through residential 
neighborhoods on roads not designed for this traffic.
  The damage caused by the one-way toll over the Verrazano Bridge could 
be ended with passage of the Nadler amendment.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
introduced by my distinguished colleague, Mr. Nadler, to change the 
one-way toll collection system for the Varrazano Bridge crossing 
between Brooklyn and Staten Island in New York City back to a two-way 
collection. This is a matter of utmost importance to the residential 
and business communities that I represent. The one-way toll was 
established in 1986 as a temporary experimental program to study any 
decrease of air pollution impacting the Staten Island communities 
located near the then existing east-bound toll booths. Since 1986, 
several thousand Staten Island residents may have benefited from less 
air pollution but the half million people of western Brooklyn and Lower 
Manhattan have been choking from the hot spots created by the gridlock. 
For the past 9 years, these Brooklyn and Manhattan neighborhoods have 
suffered from a monumental increase in car and truck traffic through 
our historic neighborhoods due to the implementation of one-way 
westbound tolls at the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. We have experienced a 
dramatic escalation in congestion, noise, pollution, and damage to our 
aging infrastructure as a result of the daily car and truck traffic 
that spills onto our local streets. This Federal intrusion in local 
traffic management imposing one-way toll collection has cost my 
constituents and my colleagues nearly $1 billion over the last 6 years 
in losses associated with increased traffic congestion, air pollution, 
and noise. Because of this toll, motorists are turning western 
Brooklyn, Lower Manhattan, and Jersey City into a pollution-filled 
parking lot. Equally serious are the vibrations on our nearby 
residential and commercial buildings and the costly water and gas main 
breaks. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has lost an estimated 
$8 million a year in lost toll revenue since 1986. This has meant 
higher public transportation fares for everyone in New York, New 
Jersey, and Connecticut. One-way tolls have made it more difficult for 
the New York region to come into compliance with the Federal Clean Air 
Act.
  Mr. Chairman, it is unconscionable that this action was ever 
permitted to happen, let alone continue for 9 years. Impassioned 
appeals to the Congress by leaders of Brooklyn and Manhattan to strip 
previous Transportation appropriations acts of this language have been 
ignored. Congress should not be in the business of imposing on local 
transportation officials toll collection schemes which bankrupt 
municipal budgets and clog our streets with metal elephants shaking 
everything as they motor by.
  I implore my colleagues to support Mr. Nadler's amendment that 
addresses this major quality of life issue for some of New York's 
thriving neighborhoods.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Nadler].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?


                    amendment offered by mr. hefley

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page H7535]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley: Page 53, line 15, strike 
     ``$8,421,000'' and insert $5,421,000''.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment, and all amendments thereto, close in 10 minutes; 5 
minutes for those favoring the amendment and 5 minutes for those 
opposing the amendment, 2\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member, Mr. 
Coleman, and 2\1/2\ minutes to myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Chairman, on June 16, 1994, Congress voted 234 to 192 to eliminate 
funding for the Interstate Commerce Commission. The task of the 104th 
Congress is to transfer any remaining necessary functions to the 
Department of Transportation.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment will cut $3 million in operating expenses 
for carrying out these few functions. Some would have us believe that 
this would cripple the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's 
ability to legislate how these functions would be carried out by DOT.
  Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is that in 1995, we spent about $31 
million on the ICC. Let us remember that figure, $31 million in 1995. 
This year we are going to spend over $22 million to carry out far fewer 
regulations without the cost of operating a large independent agency; a 
27 percent cut for something that is being eliminated.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment still only brings the cut to 36 percent. 
It does not appear we have eliminated the idea of an ICC at all; we 
have only renamed it.

                              {time}  2130

  I understand that the ICC will still exist for about 3 months into 
the new fiscal year. I am not touching any of that money.
  I also understand that closing the ICC will cost money. I am not 
touching any of that money either. But what I am going after is the 
$8.4 million for three-quarters of a fiscal year for carrying out 
functions that even many industry experts say should not cost $5 
million for the full year, and this is just for three-quarters, $8 
million, just three-quarters.
  Let us take a closer look at these numbers. The $8.4 million for 9 
months comes out to over $11 million for the full year. The rail 
industry suggests a strong regulatory structure within DOT may cost $5 
million to $7 million for the year. That is at least $4 million too 
much for a full fiscal year, or about $3 million for three-quarters of 
a year funding.
  I believe I left enough money in the appropriation for the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure to decide what sort of structure 
is necessary.
  There are some who say my amendment does not go far enough, but I 
would like to believe that when all is said and done, when deregulation 
is complete, we will not have a successor to the ICC as the 
appropriation language indicates. We will have very few people carrying 
out very few functions.
  The 104th Congress is about change. It is about reform and less 
government. We say we are eliminating the ICC, but are we simply 
changing its name?
  Mr. Chairman, a vote for my amendment is not only a vote for fiscal 
responsibility and common sense, it is also about the new relationship 
Congress has with the American people. We say we want our Government to 
make do for less. So let us really do for less. It is called telling 
the truth to the American people.
  I would encourage an ``aye'' on the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment would gut the ICC's ability to shut down, 
and the ICC will be shutting down. It would be disruptive and bring 
about bigger RIF's quicker than they have to do it, and they are 
shutting down.
  The authorizing committee, who you will soon be hearing from, is 
drafting legislation that will sunset the ICC when it identifies which 
regulatory matters need to be considered, such as rail mergers.
  Lastly, the committee heard from a large number of groups the ICC 
currently regulates. They have all asked for sufficient funding to 
continue ICC functions, such as undercharge claims, rail abandonment, 
rail mergers, and captive shipping rates and strongly oppose the Hefley 
amendment to reduce by $3 billion.
  The ICC, though, with this bill, will shut down and will be seen 
never more.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, let me only say to my colleague from Colorado the thing 
that he has not paid a lot of attention to is the fact that we have a 
lot of organizations out there that still need the facilities of the 
ICC at some point, whether or not it is an independent board of DOT, 
which is now proposed.
  Look, the bottom line, the ICC is out of business by the end of the 
year.
  Let me give you a number of those organizations who wrote a letter to 
the Speaker of the House, dated July 20. They said they wanted a 
sufficiently funded independent board within DOT. This letter was from 
the American Public Power Association, Western Coal Traffic League, 
Western Fuels Association, National Rural Electrical Cooperative 
Association, National Mining Institute, National Grain and Feed 
Association, Edison Electric Institute.
  Why the money away from even being able to set up an independent 
board within DOT?
  The Chairman is exactly right, you are to RIF a lot of people a lot 
sooner than you are going to have to otherwise. That is all this 
amendment does.
  I think it is pretty shortsighted. I hope Members will oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], chairman of the authorizing 
committee.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  I am very surprised by this amendment. We are going to eliminate the 
ICC. We have scheduled it. In September, when we come back, we will 
move to eliminate the ICC, and there is no doubt in my mind that the 
votes will be there to do it.
  Now, we must shut it down in an orderly fashion. The appropriation 
which the Committee on Appropriations has provided comes in under the 
budget resolution. It is not above the budget resolution. It is under 
the budget resolution, so that we have an orderly shutdown.
  I have a whole page of functions which are going to be eliminated for 
motor carriers, trucks, and for railroads. Now, there are a few 
functions which must be transferred, probably over to the Department of 
Transportation, a review of rail mergers and acquisitions, the common 
carrier obligation. We have still got to be concerned with these 
issues. We have got to be concerned with safety issues.
  But we are going to eliminate the ICC. But we are going to do it in a 
orderly way. We are going to do it with a very significantly reduced 
budget, indeed, a budget that is under the budget provided for in the 
budget resolution.
  So for all of those reasons, I say let us not let this amendment 
pass. Defeat this amendment and let us eliminate the ICC in an orderly, 
efficient fashion.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I hate to be in opposition to my good friends here on 
this. We are all in agreement that the ICC needs to be eliminated.
  When I, years ago, started this, I could not get enough votes to fill 
a phone booth in here. On this last year, we passed the idea of 
elimination. Now, everyone is in favor of elimination, but the talk is 
that I am trying to devastate it so it cannot be done in an orderly 
fashion.
  We are still putting $22 million in it, and many of the groups that 
are against this amendment are concerned about the motor carrier 
regulations. But the Committee on Appropriations assumes the fees 
collected will cover the expenses to administer any carrier function 
which remains.
  The ICC wants to keep 60 people for this and transfer them to the 
office of 

[[Page H7536]]
motor carriers within the DOT. Even the appropriations concede this is 
excessive, arguing the need for only perhaps a handful of motor carrier 
experts for the ICC need be retained. For the rail functions, the ICC 
wants to transfer 180 people for a commerce board. Again, the 
appropriations agreed this is excessive, contending that only 140 are 
needed. The administration believes only 100 people are needed. The 
rail industry believes, say maybe 50 or 60 will be enough for the 
board.
  So, in my opinion, we are trying to do this in an orderly way. We are 
not trying to devastate their ability to function until it is time for 
them to phase out. The idea is, though, when they do phase out, we want 
them to phase out. We do not want just a name change.
  So, again, I would encourage support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta].
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hefley 
amendment. The bill appropriates $8.4 million for the necessary 
functions remaining after the ICC's elimination. I support that amount.
  As most Members know, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure has been working diligently to produce legislation to 
close down the ICC. While we recognize the need to streamline 
Government and eliminate unnecessary regulation, the funds appropriated 
in this bill represents the barebones to support a more efficient and 
substantially deregulated independent successor to the ICC.
  Additionally, because of our committee's effort to further deregulate 
the railroad and motor carrier industry, many of the ICC's functions 
will be eliminated yet some crucial functions would remain the 
responsibility the Department of Transportation or the ICC's successor, 
including jurisdiction over railroad mergers, intercarrier 
transactions, and rail rate regulation. Moreover, many functions would 
be eliminated including, the repeal of tariff filing, special 
provisions for recyclables, and minimum rate jurisdiction, just to name 
a few.
  These functions that we seek to retain are important to the 
railroads, industry, shippers, and ultimately consumers. Therefore, it 
is crucial that we have the necessary funding to terminate the ICC in 
an orderly manner and more importantly, to provide enough funding for 
the ICC's successor.
  We should not be shortsighted. It is simply impossible for a skeletal 
staffing level, which this amendment would result in, to support this 
extremely critical workload.
  Mr. Chairman, there are 300 motor carrier undercharge cases currently 
pending before the ICC. Members of this body are familiar with the 
undercharge crisis and recognize that millions of dollars of disputes 
are still pending in courts across the country--many of which will 
eventually be referred to the ICC or its successor. As I mentioned 
before, even though we are substantially deregulating the rail and 
motor carrier industry, there are many important functions that must be 
retained and any reduction in funding could prove to throw the 
transition process into chaos.
  Mr. Chairman, the Hefley amendment, while perhaps well-intended, will 
seriously jeopardize the House's effort to reform the ICC. Therefore, I 
oppose this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hefley 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Hefley amendment. To my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I say: if you believe in 
fairness in transportation policy, you should vote ``no.'' I'm for 
reform of the ICC, but I am adamantly opposed to this senseless gutting 
of the ability of the ICC to carry out its duties under the law to 
enforce the captive shipper protections which Congress wisely wrote 
into the Rail Act years ago, and which are the responsibility of the 
FCC. The Hefley amendment would slash the funding and eliminate the 
staff of the ICC, with the result that the authority to protect captive 
shippers would remain, but there would be no means, no staff to enforce 
those protections, it would be a hollow law.
  Bulk commodities such as taconite--a processed, high-grade form of 
iron ore--coal, phosphate, limestone are products that uniquely move 
mine mouth to consumer by rail--and, often, on a single railroad 
company's line. Without the oversight of the ICC, communities dependent 
on mining for their livelihood, would be at the mercy of these powerful 
rail shipping interests for their economic future. We should not take 
so drastic an action within the inflexible context of an appropriation 
bill, which does not allow us leeway to protect the legitimate 
interests of mining communities and the industries and their workers, 
to whom these bulk commodities are shipped. Vote ``no'' on Hefley.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Just in closing, let me only say I think it has been said, but that 
what, indeed, all of the groups that wrote to the Speaker and were 
concerned about was very similar; they said;

       We strongly encourage Congress to transfer those necessary 
     functions out of the ICC to an independent board within the 
     Department of Transportation. We want Congress to ensure that 
     the new board is in place before appropriations for the ICC 
     are exhausted, to ensure smooth transition.

  That is all this is.
  I think common sense would dictate that this Congress not do anything 
that radical, and I would hope we would defeat the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] will be 
postponed.
  The point of order of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, proceedings will now resume on 
those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the 
following order:
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] and 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first in this series.
               amendment offered by mr. smith of michigan

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 101, 
noes 313, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 561]

                               AYES--101

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Barcia
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Cooley
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Deal
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Fields (TX)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gillmor
     Gordon
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Lincoln
     LoBiondo
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Portman

[[Page H7537]]

     Radanovich
     Riggs
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Zimmer

                               NOES--313

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Baker (LA)
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Collins (MI)
     Flake
     Ford
     Hansen
     Hilliard
     McKinney
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Nussle
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Rose
     Solomon
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Williams
     Yates

                              {time}  2159

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Nussle for, with Ms. McKinney against.

  Messrs. MENDENDEZ, TATE, CREMEANS, and LONGLEY changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. JACOBS, HORN, BRYANT of Texas, MOORHEAD, WILSON, and RIGGS 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                              {time}  2200


                    amendment offered by mr. hefley

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded a 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley] on which further proceedings were postponed, and on which the 
noes prevailed by a voice vote.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. COLEMAN. I have parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, this may not be in the proper form of a 
parliamentary inquiry, but I think it could be, so I wanted to ask 
whether or not this would be the last vote of the evening, in the event 
that the Committee were to decide to rise following this last vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is the understanding of the Chair that this will be 
the last vote in the Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I think the chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 144, 
noes 270, not voting 20, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 562]

                               AYES--144

     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bonilla
     Bryant (TN)
     Burton
     Camp
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Deal
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     King
     Klug
     Largent
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Obey
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Waldholtz
     Wamp
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--270

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe

[[Page H7538]]

     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McIntosh
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Mineta
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Andrews
     Baker (LA)
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Collins (MI)
     Dingell
     Flake
     Ford
     Hansen
     Hilliard
     McKinney
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Nussle
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Rose
     Volkmer
     Williams
     Yates

                              {time}  2207

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Nussle for, with Ms. McKinney against.

  Mr. KOLBE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry about tomorrow's 
schedule, and was wondering if someone on the other side could perhaps 
enlighten me with respect to the order of the schedule, the 
chronological order. I assume that there will be a limited number of 
one-minutes, and I am trying to find out whether or not we will proceed 
from that point into consideration of the corrections bill, or will we 
resume where we are tonight dealing with the matter before us?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is unaware of the program. perhaps we can 
entertain that parliamentary inquiry in the House.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, would there be a Member on the other side of 
the aisle who might be able to inform me?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MFUME. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I was told we are doing limited one-minutes 
and then correction day earlier, and then after that, go to conference, 
and then after that, come back to the transportation bill.
  Mr. MFUME. There is a 1-hour debate then on the corrections bill?
  Mr. WOLF. Yes.
  Mr. MFUME. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
the amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] 
to strike section 343 be limited to 40 minutes, equally divided between 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] and a Member opposed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gutknecht) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bereuter, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill, (H.R. 2002), 
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my colleagues in 
support of funding for the 511 Loan Guarantee Program. As a former city 
councilman, mayor, and county supervisor, I have long had an interest 
in the development of transportation infrastructure in San Diego 
County, CA.
  During the last two decades, San Diego has developed a truly 
innovative public-private partnership in the area of transportation. In 
1979, the Metropolitan Transit Development Board [MTDB] purchased the 
San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway Railroad line. The San Diego 
Trolley Board which I had previously chaired, initiated transit service 
over the western portion of this line immediately surrounding San 
Diego.
  In 1984, a Texas firm which operates Short Line Railroads established 
the San Diego and Imperial Valley Railroad which provides freight 
service over the line at night when the trolleys are not operating. 
This small railroad has provided good service and has been consistently 
profitable.
  Unfortunately, in 1976, major sections of track were destroyed on the 
desert line which connects the National Railroad System. It has long 
been a major objective of the San Diego Association of Governments 
[SANDAG] to reconnect the railroad to the national rail network in the 
Imperial Valley. This will have major benefits for shippers in the San 
Diego area, and will provide relief for the transit lines which 
currently carry both freight and passengers into Los Angeles. Even 
though the track itself is owned by the transit district, management of 
the San Diego and Imperial Valley Railroad have informed us that they 
will finance the reconnection if section 511 loan guarantees are made 
available.
  I would like to commend my colleague from San Diego, Representative 
Filner, who has been the leader on this issue, and I look forward to 
the reopening of this important freight connection.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith 
amendment. One of the many transit projects that would be affected by 
this amendment is Jacksonville, FL's Automated Skyway Express--home of 
the new NFL team, Jacksonville Jaguars. The bill includes $12.5 million 
which will complete the last segment of this mass transit system and 
allow easy, convenient access into our downtown area.
  This project began in 1984, before I was elected to this office, when 
the Federal Government asked the city of Jacksonville to participate in 
a transit demonstration project along with the cities of Miami and 
Detroit. During the last 11 years, the city of Jacksonville and State 
of Florida has invested $76,700,000, or 49 percent, in funding, while 
the Federal Government has invested $81,644,911, or 51 percent, in this 
project. The significant local overmatch by the city of Jacksonville 
and the State of Florida indicates our high level of commitment to the 
completion of the system. The $12.5 million from the Federal Government 
will fulfill its commitment to my constituents.
  These funds are significant because we will be able to link the 
Southbank and the Northbank business districts, giving access to 
employment centers and Skyway parking facilities on either side of the 
St. Johns River. The duPont station, which is the terminal station on 
this segment, will accommodate a parking facility for almost 3,000 
vehicles giving us a total of almost 5,000 peripheral parking spaces 
for Skyway patrons.
  The total economic short-term impact, including the construction of 
both segments, north leg and river crossing, is significant. They will 
result in 4,693 new project-related jobs with a payroll of $91.3 
million, a local economic impact of $274.8 million, a regional economic 
impact of $284.3 million, and a national economic impact of $429.8 
million.
  I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the overall 
transportation appropriation bill but would like to note a concern I 
have regarding the funding levels for the Office of Pipeline Safety.
  The Commerce Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee have both reported a bill (H.R. 1323) to reauthorize the 
Office of Pipeline Safety in the Department of Transportation for 4 
years.
  The authorized level in this legislation is $20.7 million which would 
be collected through pipeline user fees. This level is 6 percent over 
the fiscal year 1995 authorized level and continues to increase in each 
of the subsequent 3 years by 6 percent.
  However, H.R. 2002 appropriates $27.2 million to the Office of 
Pipeline Safety. This is nearly $7 million more than the anticipated 
authorized levels. At a hearing before the Commerce Committee's 
Subcommittee on Energy and Power, the Department of Transportation was 
questioned extensively about their proposed budget. The Subcommittee 
found that the Department's proposed budget was filled 

[[Page H7539]]
with duplication and waste. Consequently the $20.7 million 
authorization level was adopted.
  The interstate natural gas pipeline industry spends over $800 million 
per year on pipeline safety. This reflects the fact that primary 
responsibility for overseeing pipeline safety rests with the pipelines 
themselves, not the Department of Transportation. The Department should 
not be funded at levels sufficient for it to duplicate the safety 
activities of the pipelines; instead, its role is to ensure that 
pipeline safety laws and regulations are being enforced.
  I do not believe more money will make the Office of Pipeline Safety 
run better or more efficiently. Thus, although I do not plan to offer 
an amendment to reduce the appropriated level to the Committee-approved 
authorized level, when H.R. 1323 comes to the floor I do not intend to 
raise its authorization levels.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill.
  There are many areas of concern in this bill and I would like to 
point out some that I find particularly troubling.
  Originally, I had considered offering an amendment to restore some 
funding to the pipeline safety fund. However, I will not offer an 
amendment. I feel compelled to take this opportunity to impress upon 
this body the absolute necessity to continue pipeline safety as a 
priority within the Department of Transportation.
  Minnesotans unfortunately know first-hand the loss and destruction 
that can occur when a pipeline fails. In the district I represent, 
several people have lost their lives and there has been millions of 
dollars in property damage due to pipeline failures resulting in 
explosions and/or massive spills. Nationwide the numbers are 
staggering. In 1994 alone, the Department of Transportation reports 
that there were 465 accidents involving liquid and gas pipelines 
resulting in 22 deaths, over 1,000 injuries, and over $130 million in 
property damage. Our Federal role with interstate pipelines is 
absolutely essential for safety, health, and environmental reasons.
  We cannot prevent every accident, but with many caused by third party 
damage, we certainly can prevent some through a comprehensive one-call 
notification system that can alert an excavator to the location of a 
pipeline before an accident occurs. I commend the committee for 
acknowledging the importance of developing a one-call system in this 
bill's report language, and including some funding for such a system. 
However, this bill only earmarked $1 million of the State Pipeline 
Safety Grant Program for developing and implementing a comprehensive 
one-call program; a program with the proven potential of saving lives 
and millions of dollars.
  Unfortunately, once again in this Congress the new Republican 
majority has responded to the oil and gas carries rather than 
consumers; industry over the individual. The administrations budget 
sought an additional $1.2 million for the State Grant Program. This 
measure denies such funding and instead in essence provides a $7.5 
million tax break to the pipeline industry.
  The total appropriations for pipeline safety in the bill is within 
the proposed authorization. However, I would quickly point out that the 
authorization bill has not even been considered by the House or Senate, 
and yet the committee feels constrained by such a tentative measure. It 
is my hope that the Senate, when considering pipeline safety, gives it 
the priority and funding it deserves.
  Review of other aspects of this transportation appropriation points 
up other problems with this legislation which undercut important and 
basic worker protections by repealing section 13(c) of the Federal 
Transit Act. This section of Federal law, which maintains basic worker 
collective bargaining rights, has been in existence for over 30 years. 
During that time these protections have worked and have ensured a fair 
and livable wage for transit workers.
  Today, we are asked to sacrifice the standards of living for middle 
class working families at the altar of cost reductions and local 
flexibility. It is ironic that the supporters of repeal includes major 
transit authorities. While those managers continue to collect their 
compensation, they are seeking to cut the wages of the workers who make 
these systems function. Such a duplicitous policy is wrong and should 
be rejected outright.
  I am displeased that the House Rules Committee has not left the 
section 13(c) repeal subject to a point of order and that the rights of 
the workers can not be protected. It is another bad example of re-
writing policy in an appropriation measure in violation with the rules 
of this House.
  Another egregious provision in this bill is the proposal to cut mass 
transit operating assistance by $310 million. That is a 40 percent 
reduction--representing 60 percent of the cuts in transportation 
funding. These cuts directly affect those in our society who can least 
afford them: The low income senior citizen who relies on mass transit 
to remain independent; the disabled person whose only means of 
transportation is mass transit; the welfare recipient whose only way to 
get to a new job is mass transit; the college student who uses mass 
transit to get to class; the middle income worker who depends on mass 
transit to get to their job. These are the people who will suffer from 
this cut, and these people will not be able to afford the 120 percent 
increase in their fares that the majority in this Chamber would like to 
impose upon them. This funding helps hold our urban areas together, we 
must not abandon commitments to our cities.
  Mr. Chairman, once again we are faced with tough decisions on 
reducing Federal spending. As the majority party has done time and 
again, when the issue of cutting spending is raised, the first victims 
are safety, the poor and the rights of working families as graphically 
illustrated in this measure today. I urge the Members to reject this 
legislation and to enact a Transportation Appropriations bill that is 
fair and does not cripple our transportation and pipeline safety 
programs.


                          ____________________