[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 121 (Tuesday, July 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7588-H7609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 the further consideration of bill, H.R. 
2002.

                              {time}  1349


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the 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 Monday, July 
24, 1995, title III was open for amendment at any point.
  Are there further amendments to title III?
                     amendment offered by mr. wolf

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Wolf: On page 53, after line 13, 
     insert the following:
       (c) The repeal made by this section shall not abrogate any 
     rights of mass transit employees to bargain collectively or 
     otherwise negotiate or discuss terms and conditions of 
     employment, as those rights exist under State or Federal law, 
     other than 49 U.S.C. section 5333(b), on the date of 
     enactment of this act.

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] reserves a point 
of order.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes and the 
time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  Mr. COLEMAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, the 
legislative language in the bill was accorded 40 minutes. It seems 
appropriate to me that we could indeed limit this to about 15 minutes. 
I object, if we cannot limit it to 7\1/2\ minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes, 10 
minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If Members could just listen, because we are changing something that 
people have raised an issue on. Many Members are concerned about the 
reduction in transit funding, and I am concerned. We have tried to 
assist transit authorities faced with increased operating costs who 
have said that without some change in section 13(c), they will have no 
choice but to reduce service or increase fares. This perfecting 
amendment to anyone who has raised this issue is being offered to help 
address the concerns of some Members about the effect of repeal of 
13(c) on transit workers' bargaining rights.
  I want to make clear that this perfecting amendment, under this 
amendment no rights existing under any Federal or existing State law 
will be affected. I urge Members to read the amendment.
  Let me read it. It says:

       The repeal made by this Section shall not abrogate any 
     rights of mass transit employees to bargain collectively or 
     otherwise negotiate or discuss terms and conditions of 
     employment, as those rights exist under State or Federal law.

  It makes clear that collective bargaining rights are not repealed by 
the committee's action on 13(c). They are not repealed.
  Why is this amendment important? We have all heard from our local 
transit operators in support of 13(c) repeal. Who will be helped by our 
vote for this amendment? We will be helping senior citizens on fixed 
incomes use mass transit to visit the doctor. We will be helping school 
children in the inner city to take the subway or bus to school. We will 
be helping the working poor who own no care and whose only means of 
transportation is mass transit.
  This amendment will protect transit service for the single mom with 
two children on a limited income who relies on transit to get to work 
to provide for her family. By giving transit operators some flexibility 
to meet the cost of operating their systems, this amendment will also 
be helping to protect the jobs of transit workers because, without this 
amendment, more transit workers will lose their jobs.
  Without changes to 13(c), all of these people, our constituents, 
could be faced with paying higher fares or waiting longer for the bus 
because service has been reduced.
  Let me provide a real-life example. Over the last several years, the 
Committee on Appropriations has funded a demonstration program called 
Joblinks. The Joblinks Program provides transit services to welfare 
mothers to get to their jobs in hopes of getting them off welfare. The 
recipient in this case, Triangle Transit in North Carolina, after 6 
months of delay and mounting cost of litigation caused by 13(c), 
withdrew the request for Federal funds.
  That means welfare parents in North Carolina will not be able to 
participate and get jobs, as Members in this body say they want them 
to. The results of 13(c) in this case actually harm the poor. Defeat 
the attempt to get the welfare mothers into the work force and off 
welfare.
  But the impacts of reductions in transit operator assistance can be 
lessened with repeal of 13(c). Nothing could be further from the truth 
that this amendment will help everyone. The amendment I send to the 
desk this afternoon is in large measure an amendment to clarify an 
issue that has become clouded in the 13(c) debate.
  Time and again, opponents of 13(c) have suggested section 343 of this 
bill will abrogate all existing rights, and it does not.
  I urge every Member who came here last night to talk about their 
concerns about 13(c) and about their transits and want more transits 
operating to vote for this. Before you vote, come over and look at all 
the transits in the country that support repealing 13(c). From Alabama, 
California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, 
the Regional Transportation Authority, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, 
New Jersey, and New York, the New York City Department of 
Transportation, the New York City Metropolitan Transportation 
Authority, the Buffalo-Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority. It 
goes on and on and on.
  Frankly, frankly, if we do not repeal 13(c), then all of you who come 
and run around and talk about, I want more operating subsidy for my 
transit, you frankly will have been talking out of both sides.
  This is the way to help the transit people. This is the way to help 
the poor people in the inner city. This is the way to keep fares down 
whereby people can continue to ride.
  Repeal of 13(c) will not impact on existing employee bargaining 
rights. It would not impact on existing bargaining rights. Some people 
in North Carolina have spoken to me. It would not repeal the Taylor law 
in New York. It would not abrogate anything in Wisconsin. It would not 
change anything in Texas. The vast majority of the State have provided 
for public employees and transit workers to deal in collecting 
bargaining.
  Mr. Chairman, I close with this: As I made the comment last night, I 
opposed the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Foglietta] because he wanted to take the money out of the FAA. Last 
night as we were debating that issue, the computer in Chicago shut 
down. So we made the right decision there. But I have told them that 
they should go to the Senate and get the Senate to increase operating 
subsidies, and I will fight for more operating subsidies to help you in 
the inner city.
  But, my goodness, you want to go over to the Senate and fight for 
more 

[[Page H 7589]]
operating subsidies and then here is the chance to give your transit 
the greatest opportunity going. To increase the operating subsidies 
over there will be like putting money, bad money after bad money.
  I urge Members, if they really care about mass transit, support this 
perfecting amendment which protects the bargaining rights but will also 
protect the people that drive and ride mass transit.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I guess the problem I am having with the argument of the gentleman 
from Virginia is that, first of all, he claims great savings as a 
result of the rewrite of the labor law in the bill. He claims it. We 
had no testimony whatsoever about how much money this would save.

                              {time}  1400

  This is a totally phenomenal argument being made by the gentleman 
from Virginia. Let me tell the Members what the Department of Labor 
said. It said that repeal would open the door to elimination of 
bargaining rights in 23 States, where bargaining for public transit 
employees is not protected nor provided for.
  In those cases where continuation of collective bargaining rights has 
been achieved by contracting with a private management company, 
bargaining could be eliminated by transferring these private employees 
to public employment.
  In other situations where public transit employee bargaining is 
provided for, in 28 States, the repeal of section 13(c) could cause 
transit employees not only to lose their collective bargaining rights, 
but also their jobs, Mr. Chairman, as transit systems use Federal funds 
to contract out, with no obligation to the established work force. I 
think it is inappropriate for the chairman to have offered this 
amendment to his own bill when he does not answer some questions, so I 
am going to ask him to answer some.
  What happens to collective bargaining rights when existing employee 
collective agreements are deemed terminated?
  What about job protections and the application of collective 
bargaining rights to employees affected by future transit grants?
  Is it not true that the gentleman's amendment still calls for repeal 
of 13(c) and the termination of all existing labor protection 
agreements?
  This amendment, therefore, would change nothing if the gentleman 
answers that in the affirmative; it still repeals a major labor policy 
and protection program.
  Is it not true that by repealing 13(c), States would no longer be 
required to protect transit workers' collective bargaining rights as a 
condition for receipt of Federal transit grants?
  I think everyone here recognizes that this amendment is an idea 
dreamed up by the majority in order to see to it that we can 
automatically affect State law. The repeal provision still exposes 
thousands of transit workers to the loss of collective bargaining 
rights and future protection against job losses caused by the Federal 
transit grants.
  I am most concerned, Mr. Chairman, that once again here on the House 
floor, we are attempting to rewrite labor laws. In the Committee on 
Appropriations we should not have done it in the first place. A number 
of us opposed this provision in the subcommittee and in the full 
committee, when given the opportunity.
  Ultimately, now, we are confronted once again, because I offered an 
amendment to strike out that labor law provision, with that rewrite of 
labor law by the committee. Now we have an amendment that is called a 
perfecting amendment, that I know the Chair would have ruled in order 
so that we could collectively, in the House, do the drafting of the 
legislation on labor law, one that I consider to be a very serious 
mistake.
  Mr. Chairman, because of that, and because I think that I know the 
answers to all of the questions I asked of the chairman of the 
committee, I will offer an amendment.
 amendment offered by mr. coleman to the amendment offered by mr. wolf

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Coleman to the amendment offered 
     by Mr. Wolf: At the end of the Amendment by Mr. Wolf, insert 
     (d) The repeal made by this Section shall not abrogate any 
     rights of mass transit employees to bargain collectively or 
     otherwise negotiate or discuss terms and conditions of 
     employment, as those rights exist under State or Federal law, 
     notwithstanding any other provisions in this Act.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's 
amendment. We need to take a look at the amendment.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Ney].
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I will take less than that time. I do want to 
mention that on the next amendment, Coleman-Ney, of course I am 
supporting this amendment. For those of us who are supporting that 
amendment, I just wanted to urge, although I duly respect the point of 
view of my colleague, I want to urge a ``no'' vote on that, on the 
basis that in fact this would create a hodge-podge set of laws across 
the United States. I think that has to be of grave concern to us.
  Also, the amendment currently before us does nothing but clarify the 
fact that in States that do not currently protect the bargaining rights 
of men and women, transit workers will lose rights under H.R. 2002. 
Therefore, again, for those supporting on a bipartisan basis the 
Coleman-Ney amendment, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. WOLF. Continuing to reserve my point of order, Mr. Chairman, I 
yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, if Members want to know how to save money, read the 
letter from all the transits. Nobody in this body ought to vote until 
they read all of the transit letters. They have made it clear. This was 
not dreamed up in the minds of the majority, it was dreamed up in the 
minds of the transit.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard it alleged that nobody knows if this will 
save any money. I can report to the Members, as chairman of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, that the head of L.A. 
Transit came in and told us if we eliminated 13(c) they could save $100 
million a year, and a week later, the mayor of Los Angeles came to 
town, and I challenged him on this point. He said, ``Congressman, that 
is a conservative estimate.'' Across America, the transit authorities 
are telling us that they can save money by giving them the flexibility 
that they would have if 13(c) is eliminated.
  I do not like to do this. In fact, I do not like to do it in the way 
we are doing it on an appropriations bill, but we play the cards we are 
dealt. We are faced with a very tough situation in funding transit. 
Less money is going to be made available. If less money is made 
available, then that means there have to be cuts in service or we have 
to finds ways to cut costs. One of the ways to cut costs is to give 
flexibility to the transit operators across America, so we can continue 
to provide service to the American people.
  For all of those reasons, Mr. Chairman, given the budgetary climate 
we find ourselves in, this is something that we should be supporting; 
that is, the elimination of 13(c).
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would make the point, this is one more 
reason to be supporting taking transportation trust funds off-budget, 
because if we remove transportation trust funds off-budget, that means 
the transit account in the highway fund then is available without 
restriction to be spent, and those surplus balances in there can be 
dedicated to transit, so one way in these tight budgetary times to get 
more money for transit is to support trust funds off-budget, and also 
to eliminate 13(c). 

[[Page H 7590]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia insist on this point 
of order?
  Mr. WOLF. No, Mr. Chairman; I withdraw my point of order.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Coleman], the distinguished subcommittee ranking member, for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, we are looking here at perfecting amendments and 
perfecting amendments to the perfecting amendments. We are dealing with 
points of order. I submit to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that this is 
not the proper way to address such an important issue as this 13(c) 
section is. This is an important amendment as regards labor and 
management relations in our country and in the transit industry. It is 
an important amendment in regard to a contract that we have with the 
American worker entered into in 1964, when we passed the Urban Mass 
Transit Act.
  This is not the proper way to be dealing with such an important issue 
on an appropriation bill. The proper manner, whether we are for repeal 
or for reform of 13(c), is in the authorizing committee. That is where 
we should be discussing and having hearings and taking into 
consideration reforms that may be necessary in the 13(c) section.
  I would hope, no matter what we do on these perfecting amendments, 
what points of order are granted or not granted, that we keep in mind 
the bottom line here, and that is support for the Coleman-Ney effort, 
which is to strike the total repeal of 13(c) which is in the current 
bill. I hope we support Coleman-Ney, despite what happens on all these 
perfecting amendments.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to get one or two points straightened out 
here. It has been mentioned a number of times that the Regional 
Transportation Authority of Illinois supports the elimination of 13(c). 
That may very well be correct, but that is simply the administrative 
agency. There are four operating agencies under the RTA: The CTA; the 
Chicago Transit Authority; Metro Suburban Railroads; and Pace Suburban 
Buses. Those three entities all oppose the elimination of 13(c).
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to state that it has been mentioned 
on this floor that the mayor of the city of Chicago supports the 
elimination of 13(c). I have checked with him as recently as this 
morning, and he tells me that it is absolutely not correct, so I wanted 
to set the record straight on those issues. I ask Members to support 
Coleman. Oppose Wolf and support Coleman.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to withdraw my amendment to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I stand here in surprise when I hear my 
colleague and friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the 
chairman of our committee, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
lamenting the sad state of affairs for mass transit in this country, 
and what we could do to replenish the coffers of mass transit. What 
they suggest we do is to repeal 13(c), and ask the working people of 
this Nation to pay for it.
  That is not the way to go. We have over 200,000 transit employees 
throughout this Nation who have collective bargaining rights which 
would be eliminated by eliminating and repealing 13(c). What we should 
be doing is being more equitable in the distribution of our funds.
  In the budget we are increasing funding for highways by almost $1 
billion, and we are cutting funds for mass transit by $400 million, 44 
percent. If we want to be fair, let us not put the burden of the 
solution of the transit problem on the backs of the working people, but 
rather let us be equitable in the distribution of funds for 
transportation.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. COLEMAN. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I would now offer as a substitute my 
amendment which is at the desk that strikes section 343, would we still 
be required to operate under the pending time left on the Wolf 
amendment, and would the unanimous-consent agreement that we made last 
night with respect to section 343 be abrogated because we would not be 
under that parliamentary situation?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would say this is not a proper substitute. 
After we have disposed of this amendment, the gentleman could offer his 
substitute.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I thank the Chairman for that information.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would supplement it to say that would be 
under a separate time limit.
  Mr. COLEMAN. That was in the unanimous-consent agreement from last 
night, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] is recognized 
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleagues in the House, 
regardless of which side they are on with respect to 13(c), all of them 
know that for my part, I have worked very hard to reform section 13(c). 
I offered amendments in the subcommittee and in the committee. I 
offered them to the Committee on Rules. I have never yet been able to 
effect a reform, simply because of the procedures that were put upon us 
here in the House by the Republican-controlled Committee on Rules.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that we will have an opportunity at reform 
if we vote against the Wolf amendment and for my subsequent amendment 
that I will offer that takes away section 343. By doing that, we permit 
the Secretary of Labor to move forward with rules they have already 
begun to promulgate that require a 60-day maximum, for which 13(c) will 
have to be dealt with by the Department of Labor. No more long delays. 
That is where they claim all the savings come from. If that is really 
the case, why go through the machinations of all of these amendments?

                              {time}  1415

  The Secretary of Labor agrees with them. But that is not good enough 
for them.
  I will tell you what it is. There are a bunch of people over here 
that do not think that workers ought to have collective bargaining 
rights. I understand that theory and that kind of thinking. I come from 
a right-to-work State. But even in right-to-work States, we protect 
workers and give them a right to sit around and discuss unions. We do 
not say that is against the law in a free country. We let workers 
decide whether or not they want to have collective bargaining to 
maintain their jobs, a fair wage, and a standard of living so that they 
can educate their kids and provide for their families. There is nothing 
wrong in America with us continuing to do that.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Wolf amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I urge strong support for the substitute. 
Your reform is basically worthless. Before you vote on it, read the 
letter from APTA. It says the Coleman reform is basically worthless.
  Third, I support collective bargaining rights and they would all come 
back into play.
  Fourth, everyone knows what is going on here. Basically on this vote 
we are going to vote on whether or not we want to lift a little bit of 
the burden on the working poor and the people that live in the inner 
city and ride mass transit.
  Just read the letters. Read the letters from the transits. Just read 
them and look at the list. This is the last chance frankly if this 
thing does not go for Members to come back to the floor and say, ``I 
want to help mass transit, 

[[Page H 7591]]
can you get us more subsidy?'' This is the best opportunity to help 
mass transit.
  I strongly urge Members, we have perfected it, we have dealt with the 
collective bargaining issue, we have made it clear that it will stay in 
effect. This is a good amendment for your constituents and for the 
country, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOLF. 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 Virginia [Mr. Wolf] will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
                    amendment offered by mr. coleman

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Coleman: On Page 53, strike 
     section 343.
       Redesignate subsequent sections of Title III of the bill 
     accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee on Monday, July 
24, 1995, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] and a Member opposed 
will each be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman].
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike section 343 of the bill which 
repeals section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act. I am pleased to be 
joined in a bipartisan effort that we have here today by the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Ney].
  In discussing this issue with many of our colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle, I found many of them to be unfamiliar with the section 13(c) 
program. This could be because our committee never held a hearing 
specifically on the significant provision of labor law or the 
ramifications of repealing it.
  I am limiting my time, and I want others to be able to speak on this 
issue because if affects Federal transit employees all over America. 
What I found in section 13(c) is to understand that it was designed and 
intended to protect the bargaining rights of our Nation's 200,000 bus 
drivers and other transit workers. It assures that the distribution of 
Federal grants to local transit systems does not harm transit workers 
and that employee issues arising out of the provisions of Federal 
assistance are properly addressed through collective bargaining.
  It arose from the public takeover of private transit companies. That 
is what happened. There is usually a reason why laws come about. This 
is what happened. In its 30-year history, section 13(c) has provided a 
remarkable measure of labor-management stability in an industry that 
has experienced unprecedented growth and change. In urban, suburban and 
rural communities alike, section 13(c) has provided an effective system 
for transit systems to manage significant changes without harming 
employees. The last thing we all need are these constant problems in 
terms of transit. Because as we have said over and over again, as 
everyone in here realizes and recognizes, these are workers that have a 
lot to do about whether or not other Americans get to work, whether or 
not someone can shop, whether their children can go to school. A lot of 
times these issues need to be addressed very clearly.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] rise in 
opposition?
  Mr. WOLF. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] is recognized 
for 20 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Coleman amendment. Members ought 
to know that the 13(c) statute provides protection for transit workers 
for up to 6 years for full compensation and benefits.
  Everybody out there listening, do you get 6 years? That is what 
happens there. That is why the single parent is paying so much when she 
has to ride the transit. No other segment of the economy gets that.
  As a result of 13(c), transit districts cannot privatize their 
service. In fact, the cost to comply with section 13(c) is substantial.
  Let me give Members a few examples. Chicago Regional Transit 
Authority stated that it would privatize its operation but for 13(c). 
It estimates its savings could be as high as 25 to 40 percent. In fact, 
according to an independent study, privatization would save the Chicago 
Regional Transit Authority $96.1 million in 1996. That is a lot of 
money even for this Congress where we talk in terms of millions and 
billions.
  The Utah Transit Authority cannot use van pools in an area where 
there is already bus service, even though it would be more efficient.
  Indianapolis Public Transit Corporation estimates without the burdens 
of 13(c) it could save 25 to 35 percent in operating costs. If we could 
save 25 to 35 percent in operating costs around here to operate this 
place, we would do it.
  Opponents of section 13(c) suggest it is not necessary. They talk 
about this mythical reform. Here is what APTA says about this reform. 
It says, ``The proposal does not address APTA's concerns. The proposal 
would permit the issuing of conditional certifications, in apparent 
contravention of Federal case law. The proposal appears to institute a 
schedule for Department of Labor action but provides no meaningful 
relief to transit systems if the schedule is not met.''
  In short, APTA says the ``proposed procedural changes have such 
significant loopholes as to render them meaningless.''
  We have received letters from over 40 transit districts. I thank the 
transit districts because they are fighting for their riders as they 
should. While they fight for their riders, we have no obligation to 
fight here for them. The largest transit districts in the country, New 
York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, all support repeal. Citizens 
Against Government Waste supports repeal.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Coleman amendment. 
It does absolutely nothing and would just make fares go up even more.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Ney].
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.
  In a blatant attempt to end-run the authorizing committee, Mr. 
Chairman, H.R. 2002 contains an outright repeal of 13(c) protections 
for transit employees. There are 100 reasons why transit costs can go 
up to people across the country. I do not think we need to lay that 
blame upon the worker.
  Section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 states 
that if the Federal Government is going to provide moneys to be used to 
acquire private transit companies and operate transit services that are 
in financial trouble, such actions should in no way worsen the transit 
employees' position. This is what 13(c) is all about.
  Do I believe there needs to be reform? We want to talk about prices, 
and we hear from the urban centers and the mayors about we need reform. 
That is what we wanted to do. We wanted to strike and replace and put 
some true reform in there, that the unions also agreed that there 
should be reform. Of course I believe in reform, but the process of the 
House did not allow me or anyone else to offer a reform amendment, even 
though rule XXI was waived to allow for the 13(c) repeal.
  There is another body, I urge those supporting us to remember. This 
bill is not leaving here and going on to the President of the United 
States, Mr. Chairman. This bill is going on to the U.S. Senate where 
some reform could be addressed, as we would have had we the 
opportunity.
  In closing and urging the support of the Coleman-Ney amendment I 
would stress--even if you are philosophically against collective 
bargaining, I am not, but even if you are, for our Americans--I urge 
all my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment which will afford 
the authorizing committee, the 

[[Page H 7592]]
appropriate committee, to take such actions.
  If you do not support collective bargaining, Mr. Chairman, I still 
believe that this is not the appropriate way to make changes, because 
it is going through the back door and trying to undo collective 
bargaining piece by piece. You put it out front and do it that way. I 
urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, the bill language does not change 
collective bargaining or labor rights. It simply prevents labor from 
vetoing the funding of operating capital for transit districts.
  That is what we are trying to do, is to remove that veto power so 
that the transit districts can get their operating capital in a normal, 
standard, and timely manner. That is all we want to do. Section 13(c) 
must be repealed to allow that to happen.
  One transit district in my congressional district, the North County 
Transit District of San Diego County, had funds held up for more than 2 
years by the Department of Labor. These were funds that were approved 
by both the Congress and the Department of Transportation. The 
Department of Labor, however, had other plans.
  During the 2-year delay, the transit district had to acquire outside 
legal assistance which cost them an additional $111,000. Because the 
particular grants that had been held up were grants for operating 
assistance, fares simply had to be raided in order to accommodate that 
lack of funds.
  If you really look at this thing clearly, what the amendment does is, 
in effect, pass a tax increase on to the workers of America. Those that 
are the lowest income, that rely on transit ridership, those are the 
ones that are going to pay the ticket.
  That is a tax increase on the poorest of the working people of 
America. I cannot believe that that is what the Democrats would like to 
do, yet that is what this amendment does.
  I urge support of the repeal of 13(c). Keep the bill in its current 
form. Vote ``no'' on this amendment and do not pass a tax increase on 
to the riders of our transit systems across America.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Coleman-
Ney amendment. As a member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, I strongly object to the methods being undertaken by 
the Committee on Appropriations to amend existing law by slipping it 
into the bill.
  If collective bargaining rights need to be repealed or reformed, then 
it should be the task of the authorizing committee to undertake this 
assignment. But no matter what your position is on this issue, I 
believe we can all agree that it should be up to the appropriate 
committee to weigh in and take whatever action is necessary to address 
the concerns raised in regards to section 13(c).
  I urge all my colleagues to look before they leap. Vote ``yes'' on 
the Coleman amendment to strike this provision in the bill.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], chairman of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank my good friend for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment to strike the 
provision that would repeal 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act. In a 
perfect world, I would prefer to have done this in our authorizing 
committee, but we must play the hand we are dealt. Overall, I think we 
have worked out some excellent compromises with the Committee on 
Appropriations, this being one of them.
                              {time}  1430

  The fundamental point here is that in this budgetary climate we have 
our head in the sand if we think we are going to be able to provide the 
funds that are necessary to support our transit properties across 
America. We have got to find ways for them to either raise fares, 
nobody wants to do that; cut service, nobody wants to do that, or cut 
costs, and one of the ways to cut costs is to eliminate 13(c).
  Now, there have been many charges made that this really is not going 
to save any money. Yet, the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee 
has pointed out, Chicago says they can save $96 million a year; Los 
Angeles tells me they can save 1 million a year and the mayor of Los 
Angeles tells me that is a conservative estimate.
  So you take those examples and extrapolate across America. We are 
talking about giving transit properties the opportunity to cut their 
costs by very, very substantial margins.
  What does that mean? It means that they will not have to cut service. 
It means that they will not have to raise prices. It means that instead 
they will be able to provide the public the service it needs and, yes, 
provide the jobs that are required to provide that service.
  Now, there have been many, many examples of 13(c) being used simply 
as a way to block efficiencies, operating efficiencies, or investment 
efficiencies, that the transit properties across America had hoped to 
achieve. There are numerous examples.
  Transit authorities in Las Vegas, for example, had to spend $400,000 
in legal fees simply to obtain grants that were being blocked by 13(c). 
In Boise, ID, the transit authority had to spend a million dollars, 
little Boise, ID, in legal costs and legal fees to obtain a grant and 
was forced to litigate the matter in court. And, yes, what did the 
Department of Labor do? It ultimately imposed 13(c) terms on the Boise 
Transit Authority that were more burdensome, more burdensome than those 
required by the union.
  Triangle Transit in North Carolina had to spend $500,000 extra to 
purchase buses after delay. Central Arkansas Transit Authority almost 
went out of business because of the delays. Example after example 
points up the cost of 13(c) and points up the importance of defeating 
this amendment so that the transit authorities have the capability to 
function properly.
  And get this, the New York dock provision, labor provision, applies 
to transit employees getting Federal money. What that means is a 
transit employee can get up to 6 years' protective benefits, 6 years' 
pay, if they were laid off as a result of a Federal grant.
  Now, this benefit is unequal in any other employment sector. I know 
most of the people I represent in central Pennsylvania would dearly 
love to be able to get 6 years' pay if they were laid off as a result 
of a Federal grant. This is just one part of the overall problem and 
one of the many reasons why we should defeat this amendment and give 
the transit properties the opportunity to manage their properties.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, we know where the money is 
coming from. We know where the money is coming from that the 
Republicans are talking about in this proposal. The money is coming out 
of the paychecks of the hard-working transit workers.
  Make no mistake about it. By eliminating 13(c), in essence what my 
colleagues are doing is eliminating the workers' right to collective 
bargain. So while they are talking all about how they are standing up 
for hard-working people by eliminating the hard-working people's 
ability to collective bargain and their ability to stand up for 
themselves and earn a living wage, that is where they are getting their 
money and it is not right.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on Wolf and a ``yes'' vote on the 
Coleman and Ney amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. DeLay], a member of the committee.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Rhode Island may not be 
aware that the gentleman from Virginia amended his own amendment by 
making sure that nothing in the repeal of 13(c) abrogates any rights of 
mass transit employees to bargain collectively or renegotiate or 
discuss terms and conditions of employment.
  This is a perfect exampled of a labor protection that has run amok. 
We have, for over 30 years built a system that has cost the taxpayers, 
that has 

[[Page H 7593]]
cost low-income riders, that has driven up the cost of mass transit to 
outrageous sums, and it is because of things like 13(c) that has pushed 
the envelope. We have got to bring it back to some sort of 
reasonableness.
  This repeal of 13(c) only gives transit authorities the necessary 
flexibility to reduce operating expenses. It was intended at the 
beginning to protect the rights of transit workers employed by private 
transit authorities that were acquired by public agencies in States 
that prohibited collective bargaining. Now, 30 years later, ironically 
the same jobs that 13(c) seeks to protect may be those same jobs that 
are lost because of it.
  Mr. Chairman, 13(c) has become a means to pursue broader labor 
objectives and will ultimately mean the loss, not the protection, of 
jobs in the transit industry. The certification process itself is used 
by labor to pursue their agenda and has led to inexcusable delays in 
receipt of transit funding.
  The GAO found that not only does the Department of Labor take an 
average of 81 days to certify a grant application, but a lot of time 
its takes 25 weeks before it can be processed and the negotiation of 
new 13(c) protections could take as long as 30 weeks. You know what 
that does? It drives up the cost of transit facilities, facilities that 
are going to help the poor.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just ask my Members to take a look at this 
sheet that is out here on the desk of the number of transit authorities 
that support the repeal of 13(c), not exactly Republican strongholds, 
like Chicago; Washington, DC; Los Angeles; New York City; Trenton, New 
Jersey; Newark; in Ohio, the entire Department of Transportation and 
Cincinnati and Cleveland, in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I just ask Members to do what is right. Bring 
reasonableness to labor protection and vote against this amendment.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ 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 rise in strong support of the Coleman 
amendment to strike the provisions in this bill which repeal the labor 
protection rights of transit employees.
  As the ranking Democratic member of the committee with jurisdiction 
over this issue, I am particularly opposed to the use of an 
appropriations bill to make such sweeping legislative changes affecting 
so many transit employees and their families in so many cities. An 
issue of this magnitude should move through the normal legislative 
process with hearings, markup, and floor action spearheaded by the 
authorizing committee--not by the appropriations committee.
  In fact, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held 
hearings earlier this year on the 13(c) program. If changes to this 
program are needed, they can and should be made as part of our 
committee's upcoming National Highway System [NHS] bill. What is our 
rush to legislate major changes in an appropriations bill when our 
committee will soon approve its own transportation bill?
  Mr. Chairman, I testified with my chairman and good friend, Bud 
Shuster, at the Rules Committee and urged them not to protect the 
provisions in this bill repealing 13(c) from points of order.
  The committee chose to do otherwise.
  I also asked the Rules Committee to protect from points of order the 
13(c) reform amendment offered in committee by Mr. Coleman, if they 
protected the 13(c) repeal provisions contained in the bill. The 
Committee chose to do otherwise.
  The Rules Committee denied Members of the House--unfairly I believe--
the right to vote on an amendment reforming 13(c), rather than repeal 
it outright. But being denied reform does not mean that we should throw 
out the baby with the bathwater by eliminating the entire program, as 
this bill does.
  Let me quote from a letter from Mr. Peter Cipolla, the General 
Manager of the Transportation Agency in my district, ``although 
administrative reform is necessary in certain areas, I personally do 
not believe that an outright repeal of 13(c) is justified.'' How can 
anyone be clearer than that.
  Once again, I urge my colleagues to support the Coleman amendment to 
strike the hastily conceived 13(c) repeal provision contained in this 
bill.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  (Mr. POSHARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Coleman 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the provision contained in the 
1996 Transportation appropriations bill that would repeal certain labor 
laws known as 13(c). Because of my opposition to the repeal of this 
measure, I strongly support the Coleman amendment that would have the 
effect of restoring this provision of the bill.
  Eliminating section 13(c) is not about government reform, as some 
argue here on the House floor today. It is about taking away the right 
for the men and women in every one of our districts to earn a 
competitive and fair wage. Without this important provision, many 
workers, especially those in rural areas, would be unable to afford to 
take these jobs created through federally-funded projects.
  In my congressional district, prevailing wages are providing 15 years 
of work and good jobs to those working on the Olmstead Lock and Dam 
project. Without the guarantee of prevailing wages, these jobs would 
not have existed for those worked on this project even though most of 
the workers are not from my district. Prevailing wages mean the 
difference between providing for our families and being on food stamps.
  As we debate section 13(c) let us not forget what repealing this 
measure will mean to our hard working men and women and their families. 
Section 13(c) is about fairness and opportunity for our workers, not 
about government reform and downsizing.
  Because I believe in the American worker, I must oppose the repeal of 
section 13(c) and ask my colleagues to support efforts to restore the 
provision.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski].
  (Mr. BORSKi asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Coleman amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Texas to protect the rights of the working people of America.
  Section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act has worked for 30 years to 
help America's transit workers and it should not be changed through the 
appropriations process.
  There have been no hearings and there has been no consideration 
whatsoever by the authorizing committee of this repeal.
  In fact, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, as well as the chairman of the Surface Transportation 
Committee, both objected to protecting this provision from points of 
order.
  Although the Republican leadership has promised to respect the wishes 
of the authorizing committees, their zeal for this campaign against the 
working people of America overrode the need for following the rules of 
the House.
  If changes are going to be made to this important labor protection 
provision, they should be done through the authorizing committee after 
hearings and committee markup.
  This repeal is clearly outside the jurisdiction of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  This proposed repeal takes no account of the changes that have been 
implemented by the Labor Department to streamline the 13(c) approval 
process.
  Under the new procedures, proposed on June 29, the Department of 
Labor will issue 13(c) certifications within 60 days of receiving an 
application from the Federal Transit Administration.
  In some cases, involving replacement equipment, there will be no 
referral to the labor unions and no need for the review period. 
Approval will be nearly automatic.
  According to the Department of Labor,

       The guidelines include a strict time frame that both the 
     unions and transit authorities must follow which will 
     expedite the release of the grant funds.

  Even before these streamlining changes were proposed, 13(c) was not 
the villain it has been made out to be.
  Only a small percentage of grant applications have suffered through 
delays.
  The vast number of 13(c) applications are approved by the Labor 
Department within 90 days of being received.
  The costs of the 13(c) program to protect worker rights has not been 
huge.

[[Page H 7594]]

  In the 30 years since the Federal Transit Act was passed, more than 
$90 billion in Federal grants have been issued. Individual employee 
claims under 13(c) have totalled less than $10 million--a small part of 
the program.
  Mr. Chairman, section 13(c) is an important labor protection 
provision that helps protect the rights of experienced and capable 
transit workers in an industry that is undergoing massive changes.
  While 13(c) may need reforms, the Department of Labor has already 
begun that process.
  It is possible that even more reform may be necessary but that 
process should take place in the authorizing committee as provided by 
the House rules.
  Section 13(c) should not be repealed and it should not be done in 
this manner. I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the 
Wolf amendment and in support of the Coleman-Ney amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a sad reflection on the House of Representatives 
that such a major change to a long-standing provision of Federal 
transit law is taking place as part of an appropriations bill in a 
willy nilly, last minute type of amendment process that does not do 
justice to the processes of the House of Representatives.
  In fact, this bill not only repeals 13(c), but it goes so far as to 
abrogate existing labor management agreements that were negotiated 
under the provision. The effect of this scheme will be to subject the 
hard-working men and women in the transit industry to the whims, 
fancies, and caprices of federally subsidized transit authorities.
  Stripped of their ability to bargain collectively, these workers and 
their families are truly being sold into slavery by this body. It is 
ironic that while the House expresses concern over human rights 
violations in China, at the very same time it appears willing to 
violate the rights of U.S. citizens employed in the transit industry. 
This must not be allowed to happen.
  Mr. Chairman, I do urge support for the Coleman-Ney amendment and 
also urge my colleagues that the first order of votes will be to defeat 
the Wolf amendment pending thereto. That will be necessary in order to 
provide a clear message to the working men and women of this country 
that we will not renege on their contract.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
  (Mr. KLECZKA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of the Coleman 
amendment to protect workers' rights in this country.
   Mr. Chairman, I support the Coleman amendment because I believe we 
should stand by American workers and protect the principle of 
collective bargaining.
  The Coleman amendment would reverse the bill's repeal of section 
13(c) of the Federal Transit Act. This section represents one of the 
only collective bargaining rights that 200,000 transitworkers across 
the country have.
  Section 13(c) requires that transit systems, as a condition for 
receiving Federal transit aid, make fair and equitable arrangements for 
affected transit workers. It thereby ensures that conflicts on these 
systems between workers and management are resolved through collective 
bargaining.
  That is not too much to ask of these entities, yet it is an essential 
protection for these Americans. It must be maintained.
  Over the last century, we have gradually, but progressively improved 
the rights of American labor. Collective bargaining is one of the 
fundamental principles of our evolution into a society that allows 
workers to organize in order to improve their lots in life and their 
opportunities to gain fair treatment for themselves and their families. 
Repealing 13(c) will turn back the clock. And, as my colleague 
Representative Martin Sabo has said, ``This is another fundamental 
attack on the income of working people in this country.''
  Hundreds of transit workers from my district in Wisconsin have 
contacted me to voice their opposition to this repeal. They, like many 
across the country, see their lifestyles in jeopardy if section 13(c) 
is repealed. We cannot allow that to happen. We have to allow them 
access to this established and effective process to raise their 
grievances so they can get a fair deal.
  My colleagues, a vote against the Coleman amendment is a vote against 
American workers. They have been under assault in this body, but they 
are still the most productive, most resilient, and finest in the world. 
We should preserve this tool for them. Vote for the Coleman amendment 
and maintain collective bargaining for transit workers.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the cornerstone of this debate over 13(c) 
is the argument that repeal will somehow cut operating costs. Why do 
these cost cutters always want to take it out of the hide of labor?

                              {time}  1445

  Why do they not look elsewhere than workers' paychecks? No, it seems 
to me that the Republican side always is consistent. Whenever there are 
sacrifices to be made, they want to take it out of the hide of labor. 
Let labor take the hit. They do not go to capital to take cuts. They do 
not go to management to give up benefits. They go to workers. You give 
up pay and benefits, you shoulder the burden. This is wrong. This is 
the wrong approach.
  We ought to have this whole issue hammered out in the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, make some changes to put a 60-day 
limit on the time for DOT certification of 13-c compliance in transit 
grants, but let us not gut the rights of the working people of this 
country with this amendment.
  Vote for Coleman.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Coleman's 
amendment and wish to express my strongest possible opposition to 
repealing the section 13(c) program. Repealing 13(c) would mean 
threatening the rights of hundreds of thousands of transitworker across 
this Nation.
  I welcome the opportunity to reform the section 13(c) program. But 
the rule for this bill does not permit an amendment to reform 13(c), 
only to eliminate it. We have no choice but to strike this repeal from 
the bill. In doing so, we give the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee the chance to make the necessary reforms in this program 
without trampling on the rights of working American men and women.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot more strongly urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment. The repeal should not be in this bill. It should not 
have been protected from a point of order. But more than anything else, 
section 13(c) should not be repealed.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to extend his 
remarks.]
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Coleman 
amendment and in support of ending the outdated provision known as 13C.
  Mr. Chairman, the time has come to end this provision, which has been 
an albatross around the neck of all public transit authorities.
  Proponents of keeping 13C argue that it was developed as part of the 
collective bargaining process. 13C was not a result of collective 
bargaining, it resulted from a legislative provision that was passed in 
the 1960's.
  As most of us know, 13C has simply outlived its useful life. The 
current application of this law extends way beyond the original intent. 
It has become the key obstacle that prohibits public transit agencies 
from even considering the economic benefit of competitive contracting.
  Supporters of this amendment argue that this bill will impede labor's 
collective bargaining rights. Well, this is simply not true. In fact, 
13C intrudes into local decisionmaking and the collective bargaining 
process. Repealing 13C does not in any way remove labor's collective 
bargaining power.
  Based on labor protection law of the 19th century, if a protected 
employee is adversely impacted, that employee is entitled to 6 year's 
full salary.
  This antiquated protection violates fair and equitable collective 
bargaining and insures that public transit authorities, greatly 
dependent upon Federal assistance, will rarely risk such an expense. 
Thus--innovation and competition are stifled.

[[Page H 7595]]

  Repealing 13C is supported by every transit authority across the 
Nation, including New Jersey Transit. Under 13C, every Federal transit 
grant is reviewed by the national office of the labor unions. If the 
national union does not like a particular grant proposal, the union 
simply refuses to sign off on the grant and therefore holds the funding 
hostage, adding to the cost of operating mass transit.
  This practice has to stop and sanity must be restored.
  In these times of reduced Federal operating assistance, public 
transit authorities must have as much flexibility as possible to build 
projects on time and on budget. Without this flexibility, New Jersey 
and other States will not be able to provide the quality service that 
the public expects and deserves.
  We need to end the veto power that labor holds over transit projects. 
13C has been a gift to organized labor for far too long. 13C needs to 
be repealed. Let the local transit authorities manage the systems that 
they are in charge of and reject the Coleman amendment.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, you have heard all of the news 
here today. You have heard the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, and the committee of substance say they want to get a 
look at this 13(c) so they can reform it, not repeal it. That is why we 
should not support the Wolf amendment. We should support the Coleman 
amendment, which seeks rights and justice for transit workers.
  I have heard a lot from the opposition about transportation 
authorities. They have a big list here. But no one has shown you and 
talked to you about transportation workers.
  I have over a thousand signatures from transportation workers right 
here who are saying that they do not seek repeal of this. They know 
that reform is necessary, but they are solid working people in this 
country. Therefore, they need a chance.
  But our opposition today would like not to hear their voices and 
would not want them to get a chance to come to the table to have a 
chance to talk.
  There have been some delays. It will be corrected if it goes back to 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, let us be clear what this debate over 
section 13 (c) is all about.
  This debate today is one more attack in the ongoing war the Gingrich 
Republicans have declared against working people.
  Last week, in the middle of the night, the Labor Appropriations 
Committee launched the first missiles. In the middle of the night last 
Tuesday:
  They voted to cut health and safety regulations.
  They voted to cut OSHA enforcement.
  They voted to cut dislocated worker assistance.
  They voted to cut the school-to-work program.
  And today, they're trying to take collective bargaining rights and 
job protection rights away from over 200,000 transit employees.
  Mr. Speaker, in America today, the average CEO makes 150 times more 
than the average worker;
  While corporate profits have gone up 80 percent--wages for most 
Americans have gone down 20 percent. And yet, supporters of this bill 
are trying to convince us that the problem in America today is that bus 
drivers are making too much money.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm sick and tired of getting lectures from people who 
complain about transit workers trying to make a living wage--but don't 
bat an eye when CEOs and corporate moguls make millions.
  Until we value every single hand that shapes this Nation--until we 
value bus drivers and steelworkers as much as we value Wall Street 
bankers and CEOs--this Nation is not going to get where it needs to go.
  I urge my colleagues: Support the Coleman-Ney amendment. And keep 
section 13 (c) alive.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the authorizing 
committee, I rise in strong opposition to the Coleman amendment.
  Section 13(c) protective arrangements provide transit workers, 
depending on their length of employment, up to 6 years of their full 
compensation and benefits. That is outrageous.
  If we want to talk about workers, we want to talk about the rights of 
those who are employed and laboring in this country, let us think about 
those who are riding the transit, those who are paying the fares, and 
let us think about their higher costs because of the waste and the 
inefficiency caused by 13(c).
  Section 13(c) labor protection is a costly, antiquated and burdensome 
component of the Federal transit program that has impeded innovation, 
it has impeded efficiency and growth in the provision of our transit 
services. Increasingly, expensive labor protection requirements imposed 
by administrative fiat and often without legal basis has imposed 
significant costs and unnecessary restrictive conditions on transit 
services.
  The complete absence of any procedures with definitive time 
limitations governing 13(c) negotiations by the department has led to 
inexcusable delays in the receipt of transit funding. For instance, the 
American Public Transit Association found the average delay in the 
13(c) certification process was 25 weeks, and a negotiation of new 
13(c) protection typically consumed 30 weeks' time.
  The Department of Labor acknowledged at one point in 1994 that almost 
$300 million in grant funds had been delayed for over 6 months due to 
13(c) processing.
  The central Arkansas Transit Authority in my State, its very future 
was jeopardized because of 13(c). 13(c) also affords labor interests a 
second bite at the apple by providing opportunity to achieve rights and 
benefits unions are unable to achieve at the collective bargaining 
table.
  Cost savings inherent in contracting out services, using part-time 
workers, are lost because of 13(c).
  Vote to ensure lower costs for workers by rejecting the Coleman 
amendment.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  I rise in strong support of the Coleman amendment and of the contract 
rights of the bus drivers in my district. Nobody has a right to take 
those away.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Coleman amendment. No 
one in this body has the right to cancel a contract, privately 
negotiated, between workers and their employers. Section 13(c) has 
served as the basis for stable and productive collective bargaining in 
the transit industry. Its repeal would undermine a system of labor 
relations that works and replace it with labor strife. No one in this 
body has the right to cancel private contracts in Toledo, OH.
  Across our Nation, over 200,000 bus drivers and mass transit 
employees are protected by the collective bargaining agreements covered 
by section 13(c). The purpose of section 13(c) is to assure transit 
workers that their collective bargaining contracts will not be 
jeopardized by Federal transit aid programs. It provides a fair 
mechanism for the continuation of collective bargaining agreements in 
the face of service or structural changes. This makes perfect sense. It 
would be unproductive, even silly, if every shift in Federal transit 
policy resulted in reopening union contracts and risked labor 
conflicts. Section 13(c) helps avoid strikes and lockouts. Do the 
advocates of its repeal want strikes and lockouts?
  In part because of 13(c), the transit industry's growth and expansion 
in urban, suburban and rural areas has been accomplished without 
needlessly harming transit workers and with the substantial support of 
transit labor rather than its opposition.
  Some argue that 13(c) should be repealed because it slows the Federal 
transit grant process. I agree that some reforms are in order, but 
repeal is an amputation where a course of antibiotics would suffice. 
The Transportation Committee is already considering appropriate changes 
to section 13(c) which would assure the timely release of grants. 
Reforms such as a guarantee of certification 

[[Page H 7596]]
within 60 days, the application of model labor agreements, and 
expedited decisions make steps in the right direction without throwing 
out a labor relations mechanism that works.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Coleman amendment. 
Let's let the authorization process work and avoid even more slash-and-
burn legislation in this appropriations bill.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Tucker].
  Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong support for 
the Coleman-Ney amendment to H.R. 2002. Obviously the amendment would 
restore section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act. Section 13(c) is an 
important collective bargaining tool for over 200,000 transit workers 
nationwide. While there may be some agreement on both sides of the 
aisle that reform of this section may be needed, this appropriations 
bill seeks to strike out the provision entirely. If my colleagues here 
on the floor did not hear me I will reiterate, I said this 
appropriations bill would repeal section 13(c) of the Federal Transit 
Act. We are talking about making a major policy change through an 
appropriations bill and that's not right, we should be having full, 
fair, and open debate on this issue, in the authorizing committee of 
jurisdiction. Mr. Chairman, regardless of whether you support or oppose 
section 13(c), I urge you and the rest of my colleagues to vote yes on 
this amendment so we can give the working men and women, people who 
help keep this Nation moving, a fair shake and address this important 
labor protection in the right legislative vehicle, we cannot and should 
not steamroll this important labor right by repealing 13(c) through an 
inappropriate appropriations provision.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest support for 
striking the bill rider that destroys collective bargaining rights 
unilaterally and does so outside the normal legislative process. If we 
do not adopt this amendment, we will drive down wages and bust unions. 
The premise of the 13c repealer ingenuously represents that without 
it--transit systems will be forced to cut services and routes. Make no 
mistake about this, the cuts in this bill will force the reductions, 
not the working people struggling to make a decent living wage and 
support their families. The cuts in this bill will cut the throats of 
the transit agencies, while making 13c repeal the flimsy gauze to 
staunch the financial hemorrhaging of mass transit programs. This ruse 
will not fool the workers of this Nation who depend on mass transit for 
their jobs and for getting to their jobs.
  If there are legitimate problems with 13c fix them in the sunshine of 
an open legislative process. Mend not end. The legislating on this 
appropriations bill cannot withstand the scrutiny of the normal 
legislative process, let us not resort to stunts to pass hidden 
agendas. Strike this assault on honest working people. Reform, do not 
wreck 13c. Make no mistake, if you are for working men and women you 
will vote for the Coleman-Ney amendment. Vote ``no'' on Wolf.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Section 13(c) might have originally had a purpose back in 1964, but 
today it is used simply as a means to pursue broader labor objectives 
using transit grants as the hostage.
  Section 13(c) guarantees benefits for displaced workers for up to 6 
years after they have lost their jobs, 6 years. Local governments and 
transit authorities cannot afford that kind of featherbedding. It does 
not make sense in today's environment.
  We hear about attacks on the working people of this country by 
repealing that. If you care about the working people of this country, 
what about the working person who has to take mass transit to work each 
day? It is coming out of their transit fares. They are going up and up 
and up, nibbling at their paychecks.
  It just does not make sense in today's environment.
  When I was chairman of the county board in Fairfax and tried to 
privatize some of our functions in order to save transit dollars, we 
found that 13(c) was not used to protect workers. It was used to halt 
privatization and other innovative ways that we could bring more 
inexpensive transportation means to provide for the average citizen, 
not those rich people in limousines who drive to work, but people who 
could not afford to get to work any other way. This is a working man's 
amendment to repeal section 13(c). Section 13(c) today holds transit 
agencies hostage to innumerable delay tactics which costs financially 
strapped agencies millions of dollars and for absolutely no benefit.
  Its time is outdated. It is time to go. It is time to be repealed.
  I urge the defeat of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Coleman 
amendment and am proud to rise in support of working men and women in 
my district that are serving in the transit employment jobs.
  The fact is you can talk about the specific provisions of those 
contracts. Name a single transit worker who has 6 years of support 
without working. In other words, we are getting the details of the 
contract, but not the practical impact. This provision is there to 
ensure people are not going to be arbitrarily let go, that they are not 
going to be fired without any recourse.
  You know what; it works. That is apparently what the opponents of 
section 13(c) do not favor. You did not like working people having the 
opportunity to bargain and have decent wages and benefits, stability in 
our transit system, people that are licensed and qualified to do the 
job they are being asked to do, and they do it damn well in Minnesota. 
Mr. Chairman, we don't need to move to the lowest common denominator--
we can be fair to workers without bankrupting the transit systems. 
Protecting and treating workers fair isn't the problem. The problem is 
budgets that cut workers' benefits and pay and break workers' contracts 
in the name of the GOP contract which extends lavish tax breaks to the 
affluent. Support the Coleman amendment and reject the Wolf amendment. 
Don't trade workers' rights and wages for political expediency.
                              {time}  1500

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this is a very unfortunate piece of 
legislation. In 1935 we made a basic decision in this country that we 
believed in the right of collective bargaining for working men and 
women, and now we see a whole series of measures to eliminate that 
right. Repeal of 13(c) simply eliminates the right to collective 
bargaining for mass transit employees.
  Mr. Chairman, I spent almost 16 years in the State legislature trying 
to get funds from mass transit and to make sure they spent the funds 
rationally, and I still support that goal, and we have to have decent 
projects, but eliminating collective bargaining is not the way to go.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to say to my colleagues we have 
heard a lot of speeches down here about the letters that the chairman 
of the subcommittee has received from transit properties. These are the 
letters from transit workers.
  My colleagues, let me tell you something. These are people with 
families. These are people who are trying to earn a living by working 
every day in the transit arena all across America.
  These letters are not from transit properties who say, ``Save us 
money by cutting the wages, by not bargaining with workers that do the 
job every day to keep these transit properties functioning.'' There is 
absolutely nothing wrong with us reading these kinds of letters.
  Let me tell my colleagues what they say. They say we understand the 
needs oftentimes to do things more rapidly. Some of the frustration 
about 13(c) is cited in these letters.
  Let me tell my colleagues these are American citizens. They pay 
taxes, thank goodness. They have got jobs. But I want to clarify some 
of the myth 

[[Page H 7597]]
that has been circulated in the Dear Colleagues around here about 
13(c).
  First of all, striking this provision that was poorly added in the 
Committee on Appropriations that should not have been there in the 
first place should have come through the Committee on Labor. What they 
did was, of course, say, ``No, no, you can't repeal this because this 
way you won't get to change 13(c).'' False. Both the majority whip and 
the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
have been down here saying what are they doing? Nothing. Incorrect 
also.
  Mr. Chairman, on June 29 the Department of Labor proposed changes in 
the rules so that in effect the revised guidelines mean that 
certification by the Department of Labor will occur within 60 days, 
within 60 days. Now that is reform. That is what the workers talk 
about. That is what the transit property owners talk about.
  I say to my colleagues, ``You don't have to crush the workers in 
order to get reform of 13(c).'' I urge a ``no'' vote on the Wolf 
amendment, an ``aye'' vote on the Coleman amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] is recognized 
for the remaining 3 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I was not going to say much, but I heard some 
of the stuff, and I just have to.
  I come from a blue-collar family background. My dad was a policeman 
in the city of Philadelphia, helped start the Fraternal Order of 
Police; my mom worked in a cafeteria; and if my colleagues wanted to 
match blue-collar pedigrees, I will do it with just about any of them.
  When I hear about people who are working with their hands, Jesus 
worked with his hands. He was a carpenter. I mean my colleagues are 
inferring that we do not care about people who work with their hands. 
That is not right, and my colleagues know it is not right.
  There are a lot of people though who come and can afford the transit. 
There are neighborhoods whereby, if the transit stops after 10 o'clock 
at night, they cannot get home when they are working a 4-to-12 shift. 
That is what we are trying to do, to allow the transit to have the 
burden.
  A young person in my district that lives out in the western end that 
comes into the Vienna stop pays $3.25 to take the ride in from Vienna, 
$3.25 back out, and $2 to park. A single parent with kids has a hard 
time doing that. That is what we are trying to get control of.
  I heard the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] speak, and I have 
great respect for the gentleman. Frankly, if there was a 13(c) for rich 
CEO's, I will repeal it with the gentleman. If he wanted to offer it, I 
will get down there and repeal it. I agree they have too-high salaries, 
but I also agree the transit fares are too high because many working 
people cannot afford it.
  In closing the debate it is really this: 13(c) was put in years ago, 
and it was a good law. It has now been abused. I do not know if we are 
going to be successful or not, but I tell my colleagues we have at 
least generated debate. If we are successful, that is going to be good 
for transit riders. If we are unsuccessful, I believe the committee and 
all of my colleagues who have spoken so eloquently, who I all respect 
and personally like, now have a obligation, an obligation not to be a 
phony, but to be real, and take this up, and reform it, and pass it 
whereby we can do these things, and I know many of my colleagues spoke 
eloquently and many of them or most are my friends, and I believe that 
we will do that.
  The issue is vote ``no'' on Coleman, which really does not want to do 
anything because the act says his reform is meaningless. Vote ``yes'' 
on Wolf. Help keep the fares down, and help make it so working men and 
women can get to work without being driven out of business.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, repealing section 13(c) in the 
Transportation appropriations legislation is the wrong policy.
  Section 13(c) ensures the collective bargaining rights of more than 
200,000 transit workers across the country. What does this mean?
  It means that when taxpayers make a Federal transit investment, 
employee-employer issues will be handled through collective bargaining 
where employees have voluntarily organized for that purpose.
  It means that when Federal dollars are used, collective bargaining 
rights are there to protect the jobs, the pay, and the benefits of your 
hard-working, middle-class, neighbors who are transit employees.
  Repealing section 13(c) continues the extreme Republican assault on 
working families. Transit workers, who play by the rules, are going to 
have their job protections stripped away.
  Reform of section 13(c) is needed, is recognized by everyone that it 
should be done, including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission of 
the San Francisco Bay area. Indeed, the Department of Labor has 
proposed needed reforms which are under review by the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose repealing the worker protection 
provisions section 13(c) contains. It makes sure that when we spend 
taxpayer money, real, hardworking people get decent pay and job 
protections. Reject this extreme Republican assault on American 
families.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, here we go again, another 
Republican attack against the working people. That's why I rise in 
support of the Coleman amendment to maintain workers' bargaining rights 
under section 13(c). Current language in the bill threatens the 
collective bargaining rights of more than 200,000 transit workers 
across the country.
  Many Members on both sides of the aisle support sensible reforms of 
this program, but do not support repeal. They recognize that efforts to 
address the legitimate concerns by industry and by Members are ongoing.
  The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, of which I am a 
member, has jurisdiction over section 13(c). Our committee is reviewing 
the 13(c) program as well as the Department of Labor's recently 
released reform proposals.
  DOL's proposed regulations would significantly reform the mechanism 
used for the administration of 13(c), thereby directly addressing the 
principal concern of the industry: the timely release of Federal 
transit grants. In short, the DOL regulations would ensure the 
certification of all transit grants in 60 days or less while preserving 
collective bargaining rights and longstanding protective provisions 
agreed upon by labor and management.
  Efforts by the authorizing committee as well as the Labor Department 
to reform section 13(c) are far more sensible than using an 
appropriations bill to gut major labor legislation that for much of its 
history has enjoyed bipartisan support. This bipartisan support is best 
illustrated by a recent letter sent to the Speaker by 25 of our 
Republican colleagues opposing repeal of section 13(c).
  I urge my colleagues to support the Coleman amendment and give the 
authorizing committee an opportunity to reform the 13(c) program. Let's 
preserve the collective bargaining rights of thousands of hard-working 
transit workers nationwide.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] will be 
postponed.


          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 unprinted amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf], and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Coleman].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.
                     amendment offered by mr. wolf

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] 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 201, 
noes 224, not voting 9, as follows:

[[Page H 7598]]


                             [Roll No. 566]

                               AYES--201

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--224

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bateman
     Collins (MI)
     Forbes
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Jefferson
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Waters

                             {time}   1527

  Messrs. PETERSON of Florida, MINGE, and TIAHRT, and Mrs. COLLINS of 
Illinois changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. DICKEY, BILBRAY, GOODLATTE, SMITH of Texas, SAXTON, SALMON, 
and SHADEGG, Mrs. CHENOWETH, and Mrs. LINCOLN changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote number 566 I am recorded as 
voting ``no.'' It was my intention to vote ``yes''.


                    amendment offered by mr. coleman

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
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 CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233, 
noes 186, not voting 15, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 567]

                               AYES--233

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

                               NOES--186

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble

[[Page H 7599]]

     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Abercrombie
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Collins (MI)
     Cunningham
     Forbes
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Jefferson
     Moakley
     Pryce
     Reynolds
     Schaefer
     Stearns
     Waters
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to make a rollcall vote on the 
Transportation appropriations bill today, No. 567, the Coleman 
amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I ask that 
that vote be reflected at the end of the rollcall vote for that 
particular amendment in the Record.


                          personal explanation

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, rollcall No. 566, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall No. 567, had I been present, I would 
have voted ``yes.'' I would like the Record to reflect, due to 
unavoidable delay, I was unable to be present.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I did not realize this was a 5-minute 
vote. I was sitting in the cloakroom and missed the last vote.
  I asked that the Record reflect that I would have voted ``aye.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, on the last vote, I did not participate. I 
ask that the Record reflect that had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title IV.
  The text of title IV is as follows:

    TITLE IV--PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF MANDATORY STANDARDS AND 
 PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE ACTIONS OF ARBITRATORS IN THE ARBITRATION OF 
  LABOR DISPUTES INVOLVING TRANSIT AGENCIES OPERATING IN THE NATIONAL 
                              CAPITAL AREA

     SECTION 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``National Capital Area 
     Interest Arbitration Standards Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 402. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) affordable public transportation is essential to the 
     economic vitality of the national capital area and is an 
     essential component of regional efforts to improve air 
     quality to meet environmental requirements and to improve the 
     health of both residents of and visitors to the national 
     capital area as well as to preserve the beauty and dignity of 
     the Nation's capital;
       (2) use of mass transit by both residents of and visitors 
     to the national capital area is substantially affected by the 
     prices charged for such mass transit services, prices that 
     are substantially affected by
      labor costs, since more than \2/3\ of operating costs are 
     attributable to labor costs;
       (3) labor costs incurred in providing mass transit in the 
     national capital area have increased at an alarming rate and 
     wages and benefits of operators and mechanics currently are 
     among the highest in the Nation;
       (4) higher operating costs incurred for public transit in 
     the national capital area cannot be offset by increasing 
     costs to patrons, since this often discourages ridership and 
     thus undermines the public interest in promoting the use of 
     public transit;
       (5) spiraling labor costs cannot be offset by the 
     governmental entities that are responsible for subsidy 
     payments for public transit services since local governments 
     generally, and the District of Columbia government in 
     particular, are operating under severe fiscal constraints;
       (6) imposition of mandatory standards applicable to 
     arbitrators resolving arbitration disputes involving 
     interstate compact agencies operating in the national capital 
     area will ensure that wage increases are justified and do not 
     exceed the ability of transit patrons and taxpayers to fund 
     the increase; and
       (7) Federal legislation is necessary under Article I of 
     section 8 of the United States Constitution to balance the 
     need to moderate and lower labor costs while maintaining 
     industrial peace.
       (b) Purpose.--It is therefore the purpose of this Act to 
     adopt standards governing arbitration which must be applied 
     by arbitrators resolving disputes involving interstate 
     compact agencies operating in the national capital area in 
     order to lower operating costs for public transportation in 
     the Washington metropolitan area.

     SEC. 403. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Title--
       (1) the term ``arbitration'' means--
       (A) the arbitration of disputes, regarding the terms and 
     conditions of employment, that is required under an 
     interstate compact governing an interstate compact agency 
     operating in the national capital area; and
       (B) does not include the interpretation and application of 
     rights arising from an existing collective bargaining 
     agreement;
       (2) the term ``arbitrator'' refers to either a single 
     arbitrator, or a board of arbitrators, chosen under 
     applicable procedures;
       (3) an interstate compact agency's ``funding ability'' is 
     the ability of the interstate compact agency, or of any 
     governmental jurisdiction which provides subsidy payments or 
     budgetary assistance to the interstate compact agency, to 
     obtain the necessary financial resources to pay for wage and 
     benefit increases for employees of the interstate compact 
     agency;
       (4) the term ``interstate compact agency operating in the 
     national capital area'' means any interstate compact agency 
     which provides public transit services;
       (5) the term ``interstate compact agency'' means any agency 
     established by an interstate compact to which the District of 
     Columbia is a signatory; and
       (6) the term ``public welfare'' includes, with respect to 
     arbitration under an interstate compact--
       (A) the financial ability of the individual jurisdictions 
     participating in the compact to pay for the costs of 
     providing public transit services; and
       (B) the average per capita tax burden, during the term of 
     the collective bargaining agreement to which the arbitration 
     relates, of
      the residents of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, and 
     the effect of an arbitration award rendered pursuant to 
     such arbitration on the respective income or property tax 
     rates of the jurisdictions which provide subsidy payments 
     to the interstate compact agency established under the 
     compact.

     SEC. 404. STANDARDS FOR ARBITRATORS.

       (a) Factors in Making Arbitration Award.--An arbitrator 
     rendering an arbitration award involving the employees of an 
     interstate compact agency operating in the national capital 
     area may not make a finding or a decision for inclusion in a 
     collective bargaining agreement governing conditions of 
     employment without considering the following factors:
       (1) The existing terms and conditions of employment of the 
     employees in the bargaining unit.
       (2) All available financial resources of the interstate 
     compact agency.
       (3) The annual increase or decrease in consumer prices for 
     goods and services as reflected in the most recent consumer 
     price index for the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, 
     published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the 
     United States Department of Labor.
       (4) The wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of the 
     employment of other employees who perform, in other 
     jurisdictions in the Washington, D.C. standard metropolitan 
     statistical area, services similar to those in the bargaining 
     unit.
       (5) The special nature of the work performed by the 
     employees in the bargaining unit, including any hazards or 
     the relative ease of employment, physical requirements, 
     educational qualifications, job training and skills, shift 
     assignments, and the demands placed upon the employees as 
     compared to other employees of the interstate compact agency.
       (6) The interests and welfare of the employees in the 
     bargaining unit, including--
       (A) the overall compensation presently received by the 
     employees, having regard not only for wage rates but also for 
     wages for time not worked, including vacations, holidays, and 
     other excused absences;
       (B) all benefits received by the employees, including 
     previous bonuses, insurance, and pensions; and
       (C) the continuity and stability of employment.
       (7) The public welfare.
       (b) Compact Agency's Funding Ability.--An arbitrator 
     rendering an arbitration award involving the employees of an 
     interstate 

[[Page H 7600]]
     compact agency operating in the national capital area may not, with 
     respect to a collective bargaining agreement governing 
     conditions of employment, provide for salaries and other 
     benefits that exceed the interstate compact agency's funding 
     ability.
       (c) Requirements for Final Award.--In resolving a dispute 
     submitted to arbitration involving the employees of an 
     interstate compact agency operating in the national capital 
     area, the arbitrator shall issue a written award that 
     demonstrates that all the factors set forth in subsections 
     (a) and (b) have been considered and applied. An award may 
     grant an increase in pay rates or benefits (including 
     insurance and pension benefits), or reduce hours of work, 
     only if the arbitrator concludes that any costs to the agency 
     do not adversely affect the public welfare. The arbitrator's 
     conclusion regarding the public welfare must be supported by 
     substantial evidence.

     SEC. 405. PROCEDURES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AWARDS.
       (a) Modifications and Finality of Award.--In the case of an 
     arbitration award to which section 404 applies, the 
     interstate compact agency and the employees in the bargaining 
     unit, through their representative, may agree in writing upon 
     any modifications to the award with
      in 10 days after the award is received by the parties. After 
     the end of that 10-day period, the award, with any such 
     modifications, shall become binding upon the interstate 
     compact agency, the employees in the bargaining unit, and 
     the employees' representative.
       (b) Implementation.--Each party to an award that becomes 
     binding under subsection (a) shall take all actions necessary 
     to implement the award.
       (c) Judicial Review.--Within 60 days after an award becomes 
     binding under subsection (a), the interstate compact agency 
     or the exclusive representative of the employees concerned 
     may file a civil action in a court which has jurisdiction 
     over the interstate compact agency for review of the award. 
     The court shall review the award on the record, and shall 
     vacate the award or any part of the award, after notice and a 
     hearing, if--
       (1) the award is in violation of applicable law;
       (2) the arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator's powers;
       (3) the decision by the arbitrator is arbitrary or 
     capricious;
       (4) the arbitrator conducted the hearing contrary to the 
     provisions of this title or other statutes or rules that 
     apply to the arbitration so as to substantially prejudice the 
     rights of a party;
       (5) there was partiality or misconduct by the arbitrator 
     prejudicing the rights of a party;
       (6) the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or bias on 
     the part of the arbitrator; or
       (7) the arbitrator did not comply with the provisions of 
     section 404.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title IV?
  If not, the Clerk will read the last three lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Transportation 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996''.


                    amendment offered by mr. nadler

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler: At the end of the bill, 
     add the following new title:

                                TITLE V


                     ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for improvements to the Miller Highway in New York 
     City, New York.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I, along with the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Royce], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge], the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] and with strong support from the 
Porkbusters Coalition, the Council for Citizens Against Government 
Waste, and the National Taxpayers Union, offer this amendment to keep 
valuable taxpayers' dollars from being wasted on an outrageous 
boondoggle in my district in New York City.
  The issue is simple. In my district, there is an elevated highway, 13 
blocks long, about three-fifths of a mile. This elevated highway, we 
have just finished repairing it just last December for about $92 
million of the taxpayers' money.
  Now Donald Trump wants the taxpayers to shell out another $350 
million to tear down this brand-new highway and move it a few hundred 
feet so that it will not interfere with the site lines of the 
prospective purchasers of the apartments in a new high rise luxury 
development he plans to build adjacent to it.
  Mr. Chairman, no one even claims that there is any transportation 
purpose for this project, no transportation purpose whatsoever. The 
only purpose of this boondoggle is to enable potential buyers of the 
luxury apartments in Donald Trump's project to have an unobstructed 
view of the Hudson River, thereby increasing the potential sales price 
of these units and the potential profits gained by the investors in Mr. 
Trump's project.
  I would like to point out that the local State Senator, the local 
assembly member, the local city council member, the two local community 
planning boards in New York City, the Coalition for a Livable West 
Side, and 4,000 New Yorkers whose signatures are on petitions I hold 
here, strongly oppose this project.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce], the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge], and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Newmann], the Porkbusters Coalition, the Council and Citizens 
Against Government Waste, and the National Taxpayers Union for the 
strong support they have given this amendment and the work they have 
done to put the brakes on this boondoggle.
  Much has been said in this Chamber in recent months about balancing 
our budget, stopping waste and putting an end to taxpayers subsidies 
for millionaires and billionaires. Today we have an opportunity to 
buttress these statements with action.
  Donald Trump has been quoted as saying, ``I discovered for the first 
time but not the last that politicians do not care too much what things 
cost; it is not their money.''
  Well, it is our constituents' money. This bipartisan coalition is 
answering Mr. Trump's cynicism by saying no.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Nadler-Royce-Minge-Neumann 
amendment to send a clear message that the days when a little influence 
peddling could get the Federal Government to take the taxpayers for a 
ride by spending $350 million to tear down a brand-new, perfectly good 
highway and move it just to increase someone's profits are over.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in 
support of the amendment.
  The gentleman from New York proposes a limitation on funds to proceed 
with construction of the Miller Highway in New York City. As I 
understand it, he claims that Donald Trump is seeking to use taxpayer 
funds to tear down and move a newly refurbished highway to enable him 
to build luxury housing on the west side of Manhattan. I think the 
amendment, as I understand it, represents good government and I support 
it.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise, Mr. Chairman, in support as well of the Nadler amendment. I 
wanted to praise my colleague for spearheading this effort to eliminate 
pork from his own district.
  The Miller Highway in Manhattan has just been renovated at a cost to 
taxpayers of $92 million. It was completed, this renovation, in 
December, just 8 months ago. So now we are looking at a highway that 
has a life of 35 to 40 years. The intent of this amendment is to 
disallow this newly refurbished, taxpayer funded, multimillion dollar 
highway from being demolished and moved at an additional cost of $350 
million.
  Why would that be done? It is not because the highway is unsafe or 
because advances have made the highway unnecessary, but because this 
brand-new highway does not guarantee a spectacular river view of a 
projected housing development nearby. I have heard the view lots are 
expensive, but $350 million, frankly, colleagues, is too much.
  Not only does our colleague from Manhattan oppose this boondoggle; it 
is also opposed by many local officials, including, I am told, the 
mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, so I defer to their wisdom as to 
what is not good for their district. I strongly support the Nadler 
amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. This 
side of the aisle supports the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Nadler].
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  
[[Page H 7601]]



                    amendment offered by mr. andrews

  Mr. ANDREWS. 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. Andrews: At the end of the bill, 
     add the following new title:

                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for planning or execution of the military airport 
     program.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes, and that 
the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews] is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1990 the Members of this body came up with a piece 
of legislation that embodied a good idea. That good idea was that if we 
are going to be closing military airports that had the potential for 
civilian use, that we ought to apply some of the funds that we use for 
airport improvement toward those airports, so they could serve two 
objectives: first, so they could serve the objecteive of making 
potentially successful civilian airports occur; and the second 
objective was so we could lighten the load on our traffic problem in 
major metropolitan areas. Therefore, we set up this program which said 
that when we had a military airport that was either closed or due for 
closure, that we could convert it as long as it served the twin 
purposes of being viable at some point and served the purpose of 
lightening the traffic problem in major metropolitan areas of the 
country. Thus was born the Military Airport Program.
  Mr. Chairman, in the 1996 appropriations bill which is in front of 
us, $37 million has been set aside for this program, which is an 
increase of about $6 million over last year's appropriation. Mr. 
Chairman, I would submit that this is a good idea which is not being 
carried out and executed the way the program is being presently run.
  Since 1990, 12 airports have received funding under this particular 
proposal. In 1994, the GAO issued a report analyzing the extent to 
which the FAA had complied with the conditions of the 1990 law which 
set up this program. Here is what the GAO had to say: ``Nine of the 12 
airprots in the Military Airport Program do not meet the level 
established program goals. Five of the airports are not located in 
congested air traffic areas and are unlikely to increase capacity, and 
nine of the airports selected had already been operating as joint or 
civilian airports for 10 or more years.''
  Mr. Chairman, this is the legislative equivalent of us saying that we 
have a traffic problem in certain areas of the country, and setting 
aside highway funds to alleviate the traffic problem, whether it be in 
Washington, DC or Philadelphia or New York or Los Angeles or some 
highly traveled area, and then spending the money in isolated areas 
that do not have a traffic problem.
  This was a good idea. It said that military airports that could be 
successfully converted for civilian use ought to, if that conversion 
would ease the air traffic control problem and flight problems that we 
have in the country. The problem is that the good ideals and good ideas 
behind this legislation have in fact never been carried out.
  I would suggest that the solution, Mr. Chairman, is not to abolish 
this program, because it is a fundamentally good idea. The solution 
embodied in my amendment is for a timeout. It is to say that for the 
present fiscal year, let us not throw good money after bad. Let us take 
a deep breath, let us go back to the authorizing committee, so it can 
analyze the results of this GAO report and other criticisms of the 
program, and make it work better.
  It says, again to use the analogy of the highway program I talked 
about earlier, if we are setting aside taxpayers' money to alleviate 
traffic, let us alleviate traffic. Let us not put the money into road 
projects in parts of the country that do not need it.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that we will hear in the minutes ahead, 
and I have no doubt of the accuracy, that many of these projects are 
worthy, they are beneficial to the areas that they serve, and are 
justifiable on any of a number of host of criteria. The problem is that 
those criteria meet the conditions of the General Airport Improvement 
Program, for which any airport in America can apply and compete fairly 
for the funds. They typically do not meet the criteria set forth by the 
Congress when it enacted this law in 1990.
  Put simply, my amendment says, ``Let us take a time out. Let us not 
throw good money after bad. Let us take the $37 million out of this 
amendment that is in for 1996, let us go back to the authorizing 
drawing board, and let us not throw good money after bad.''
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] in opposition 
to the amendment?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] is recognized 
for 10 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the Military Airport Program is designed to convert for 
civilian use airfields on military bases which are closing, and to 
allow civilian use of current military airfields. The program is 
intended to focus on military airfields in congested areas, thereby 
opening up and adding needed capacity to the national aviation system, 
which it clearly needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the GAO report that the gentleman 
mentions, but under the new management the FAA is working to resolve 
the issue, and frankly, if they do not, then I will be inclined next 
year when the gentleman offers the amendment to, frankly, accept the 
amendment or to do something. However, until they are given that time, 
I think the amendment is wrong. Certainly with the Base Closure 
Commission continuing to close these facilities that are no longer 
needed, we should take advantage of the airfields that were built at 
Federal expense which could relieve airway congestion at the busier, 
larger airports.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Coleman] and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to allocate the 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 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 was chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Aviation of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation when this 
program was initiated. At the time we included a provision in the AIP 
program to convert military airfields to civilian use or to joint use, 
we were experiencing enormous delays costing over $7 billion to air 
travelers in the late 1980's and early 1990's.
  In fact, last year there were 248,000 delays of 15 minutes or more at 
America's major airports. That is down 20 percent since we initiated 
this language providing for conversion of military airfields and since 
we initiated expansion of our airport capacity.
  There are 500 million passengers traveling by air in the United 
States. Ninety-four percent of all paid intercity travel in America is 
by air. We have half of all the world's air transportation in the 
United States. We cannot expand infinitely all existing airports. We 
need to make use of the available resource of military airfields that 
are being closed down and convert them to either all civilian use or 
joint use with military facilities, and we are doing that.
  Our committee last year held hearings on the GAO report that the 
gentleman from New Jersey has referenced, and we made corrections, we 
made adjustments as GAO recommended, and we included those 

[[Page H 7602]]
changes in the legislation. There is no need for further delay, stop 
now, take another look, do not proceed with this program.
  It is extremely important that we proceed to use the capacity of 
existing military airfields, so we do not have to spend the billions of 
dollars that it will take to build new airports, or billions of dollars 
to expand existing airports, but use those facilities that are already 
in place for a very modest percentage of what it costs to build a new 
airport. Defeat the amendment. It is ill timed and ill advised.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], chairman of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. My 
good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. Andrews], is 
absolutely correct when he says this was a good idea, but it was an 
idea that had problems with it. GAO was correct when they identified 
these problems. The key point here, however, is that as a result of 
identifying these problems, we took action to correct these problems, 
and in the AIP bill we rewrote the law.
  For example, we required that the fund could be used for these 
military airports only if they reduced delays at airports with 20,000 
hours of annual delays or more, so we have already acted, based on the 
GAO report, to correct these problems. Therefore, there is no reason 
for further delay.
  Mr. Chairman, I would add that the FAA has also acted to tighten up 
their approvals and their oversight on this particular provision, so 
there is no reason to delay. The need exists and we should proceed. I 
assure the gentleman from New Jersey, if we uncover other problems, we 
will deal with those problems in the AIP program, the Airport 
Improvement Program, when it next comes before this House.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that this amendment will not 
save a penny. It would merely reallocate the money to other portions of 
the program. Mr. Chairman, that would be a good idea if the problem 
still existed, and if there were better places to spend the money. The 
fact is, this is a very worthy program. Indeed, with the base closings, 
with the increase in air traffic, with the increase in passenger 
travel, and indeed, in the past 8 or 9 years, we have had more than a 
doubling of passenger travel.
  For all those reasons we should reject this amendment, this well-
intentioned amendment, because a year ago it would have made a lot of 
sense, but the problems have been corrected, so I would urge that we 
defeat this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Costello].
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews]. I will not go into the 
merits of the program. I think that has been discussed by both the 
former chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation and the chairman of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Let me say to my friend from New Jersey that he cites a couple of 
problems within the program that the GAO has indicated in their study, 
and he indicates that he agrees with the GAO report. Let me just cite 
for a second a case in point as a model example under this program.
  Scott Air Force Base, in my congressional district in southwestern 
Illinois, was one of the first military airports funded under this 
program. In the last 3 years, Scott Air Force Base has received over 
$20 million in order to move forward with a civilian airport at Scott. 
Let me also say that this $20 million has been used as leverage by the 
State of Illinois and local officials, and the State now has committed 
a substantial amount of money from the State of Illinois and the county 
of St. Clair.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, the FAA has made substantial commitments 
to the civilian airport at Scott. Let me tell the Members that without 
the MAP program, Scott Air Force Base and Mid-America Airport at Scott 
would not be under construction today. Because of the MAP program, we 
will have a new civilian airport at Scott Air Force Base. Mid-America 
Airport is due to open in November of 1997, which will provide relief 
to St. Louis International Airport and create thousands of jobs in the 
St. Louis metropolitan area. I assure my colleagues that we would not 
have seen the progress that we have seen so far in Mid-America Airport 
had it not been for this program.
  Mr. Chairman, let me finally conclude by saying that we have, through 
the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, acted on the 1994 GAO report. As my colleague, the 
distinguished chairman of the committee, has indicated, they have acted 
upon the report.
  I would ask my colleagues to join the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Coleman], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], 
and others to oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform the Members that the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews] has 5 minutes remaining, the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], has the right to close.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Coleman].
                              {time}  1600

  Mr. COLEMAN. I thank my colleague the gentleman form New Jersey for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I respect very much what the gentleman 
from New Jersey perceives to be a significant problem in terms of 
dealing overall in a budget-tightened environment.
  I think that we should not hasten to say that the idea of this 
amendment was all wrong. I think the problem that the chairman and I 
have in the subcommittee and others who have spoken out against this 
amendment is that we need to think about what the effect of an 
amendment is if and when it is passed. In this instance, I believe, I 
may be incorrect and maybe the gentleman could correct me, but my 
understanding of the situation will be that funding for 12 airports 
that are currently in the program located in New York, Texas, Illinois, 
New Mexico, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Tennessee, 
California, and Guam would be cut out of the bill were this amendment 
to prevail. I do not like changing the rules in the middle of the 
stream. I think that what we need to do is work with the gentleman and 
others who have problems with this program and tighten down the 
parameters of it so that we do not do the things that the gentleman 
from New Jersey may indeed be correctly concerned and worried about.
  I would just say to the gentleman from New Jersey, I certainly 
understand his amendment. He has my commitment to work with him in the 
future should this amendment not prevail.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews] is 
recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I appreciate the questions, Mr. Chairman, that have been 
raised during this debate. I would like to attempt to answer them. Does 
it not make sense to help military facilities that were on the base 
closure list convert to civilian use? Yes. But only 2 of the 12 
facilities we are talking about were on the base closure list. The 
other 10 were used for either mixed or strictly civilian use for dates 
going all the way back to 1952. This is really not something that is 
being done in the context of the base closure list.
  Should we not be doing something to deal with the very serious 
problem of the overflow of air traffic in the country? Absolutely. But 
here is what the GAO said in 1994 about this program:

       The FAA has made no efforts to better define such needs or 
     to develop a mechanism for allocating funds. Also, the FAA 
     has not analyzed the impact of the program on enhancing 
     capacity in major metropolitan areas or system-wide.


[[Page H 7603]]

  I think the burden of proof for changes that have occurred since that 
report a year ago should be on those who want more taxpayer money for 
the program. My suggestion would be, let them prove it is working 
first, then let's give some more money perhaps in the 1997 
appropriations bill, after we see the changes that I accept have 
attempted to be made.
  The question is, What would happen to the 12 projects that are under 
consideration, that are more than under consideration, that are under 
way? The answer is there would be a 12-month interruption in their 
funding. I realize that would be difficult and undesirable. During that 
time, the authorizing committee could reexamine this situation, analyze 
what works, what does not work and bring legislation to the floor which 
could go forward and expedite solutions to these problems. Again, I 
think you fix it first, and the input more money into it.
  Finally, the distinguished chairman of the authorizing committee, the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, says, ``Well, if the 
amendment were to pass, it would just go right back into the bill, 
anyway. It would not really save any money.'' I take at face value, Mr. 
Chairman, representations by the chairman of the Committee on Rules and 
others on the majority side that we are going to have a lock box 
amendment at some point in this Congress that will probably work 
retroactively. As I understand the commitments that have been made on 
the majority side, when the Brewster-Harman lock box amendment finally 
reaches its way to the floor and is enacted as I believe it will be, it 
will go back and capture any savings that were taken out of these bills 
over the last weeks.
  I would just suggest to this: We are being asked in this Congress to 
make some very difficult and controversial decisions--about less money 
for reading teachers to teach children how to read, less money for 
Medicare, abolition of programs that help senior citizens pay their 
heating and air conditioning bills, questions about funding for 
research about some of our more serious diseases, an appropriations 
bill coming here later this week that cuts funding for Head Start.
  I am not saying this program is a bad idea. I am not saying 
everything that has gone on under it has been all bad. That is 
certainly not true. But I am saying in that environment, in this 
context, should the burden of proof not be on those who claim the 
program ought to be fixed to show it has been fixed? I do not think 
they have met the burden of proof. I think the right thing to do is to 
prove this amendment, cut out funding in 1996, fix the program by 1997 
and then refund it when it makes sense and is working the way it is 
supposed to.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Aviation.
  (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment being offered by Mr. Andrews.
  This amendment would eliminate funding for the military airport 
program. This program sets aside only 2.5 percent of airport 
improvement program funds for military airports.
  Converting military bases to civilian use saves the taxpayers money. 
The $37 million we would spend next year to help convert military bases 
to civilian airports would increase airport capacity and help reduce 
congestion and delays.
  It is much cheaper than building new airports such as the one at 
Denver that cost more than $4 billion.
  I am aware that GAO criticized the management of the military airport 
program in a report last year.
  However, as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I am prepared to 
eliminate the military airport program as part of the AIP 
reauthorization if necessary. But the subcommittee needs an opportunity 
to examine this worthy program in light of the GAO report, legislative 
changes made in response to that report, and recent developments. 
Eliminating the program now in this bill would be premature.
  Therefore, I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following letter for the Record:

         American Association of Airport Executives, King Street, 
           Alexandria, VA
                                                    July 24, 1995.
     Hon. John J. Duncan Jr.,
     Chairman, House Aviation Subcommittee,
     Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the thousands of men and 
     women who manage and operate our nation's airports, I am 
     writing to express our opposition to amendments to H.R. 2002 
     to be offered by Representative Andrews (D-NJ) to lower the 
     funding level for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and 
     limit funding for the Military Airport Program.
       The Airport Improvement Program has suffered dramatic 
     funding reductions over the past several years. This 
     amendment would cut yet another $37 million from the program 
     and would represent a step backward. Any proposed changes to 
     the Military Airport Program are more properly considered in 
     the context of next year's reauthorization of the Airport 
     Improvement Program, not in H.R. 2002.
       Please oppose the Andrews amendments to lower the AIP and/
     or Military Airport Program funding levels currently 
     contained in H.R. 2002.
       Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                               Charles M. Barclay,
                                                        President.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise again in opposition to the amendment. 
The point that it does not save any money has been made. Also, a number 
of these communities have been fairly hard hit by base closings.
  I have a community in my own district, and we do not have an airport 
so it is not involved in this. But I know how hard hit the community 
was. To do this to them would be inappropriate. I would ask that there 
be a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Andrews]. This amendment would eliminate an important and successful 
aviation program.
  The Military Airport Program encourages a more efficient use of 
existing airports by facilitating the conversion and joint use of 
military airports for civilian purposes. In addition to avoiding 
unnecessary duplication, the Military Airport Program helps relieve 
congestion and enhances safety.
  This Member believes it would be a serious mistake to eliminate a 
program which has provided significant benefits since its creation and 
offers tremendous potential in the coming years. As additional military 
bases are closed, there will be an increased need to facilitate their 
conversion to civilian uses. The Military Airport Programs will help 
meet this need.
  This Member urges a ``no'' vote on this harmful amendment.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment which would 
abolish the important program which develops military airports for 
civilian use.
  The Department of Defense has closed a number of military airfields 
in the past few years. If these airports can be converted to civil use 
they can make a substantial contribution to our aviation system.
  The Military Airport Program is particularly important because it 
funds types of development which are not eligible under the basic AIP 
program. The eligible development includes development of terminal 
buildings, gates, parking lots and utility systems. These are the types 
of development most needed to convert military airports to civil use.
  Since the military program was authorized in 1990, it has funded 
development at 12 airports. The program has made a substantial 
contribution to developing out civil airport system. It can make an 
even greater contribution in the future.
  In support of his amendment, my colleague cites a 1993 GAO report 
which criticized the military program. GAO's report was fully 
considered when we reauthorized the airport program last year. We found 
much of the criticism to be misdirected, reflecting GAO's theories of 
what priorities should be followed in the program. These priorities 
were exclusively GAO's; they were not part of the governing law which 
we had passed.
  The bottom line is that the conference committee decided, on a 
virtually unanimous and bipartisan basis, to renew the military 
program, notwithstanding the GAO criticisms. 

[[Page H 7604]]
There is no reason to reverse our decision at this time. I urge a 
``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 5, noes 
416, not voting 13, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 568]

                                AYES--5

     Andrews
     Klug
     Lincoln
     Stupak
     Torkildsen

                               NOES--416

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bachus
     Bateman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Forbes
     Gillmor
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Jefferson
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Rose
                              {time}  1628

  Mr. REED changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall No. 568, the 
Andrews amendment on H.R. 2002, the Transportation appropriations bill, 
I was unavoidably delayed. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.'' I ask that my statement appear in the Record immediately 
following rollcall No. 568.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the staff of the transportation 
appropriations subcommittee for their yeoman work over the past 7 
months in putting this bill together. Starting early this year with the 
dozens of hearings we held, working long days and nights drafting the 
bill for the subcommittee markup, moving the legislation through the 
full committee and bringing the bill to the floor today, I salute John 
Blazey, Rich Efford, Stephanie Gupta, Linda Muir, and Deborah Frazier 
of the subcommittee staff as well as my associate staff member, Lori-
Beth Feld Hua. In my first year as chairman of the subcommittee, these 
men and women have provided invaluable help as we have worked to 
develop a bill which is responsive to the transportation needs of 
America and the American taxpayers, and I am proud to be associated 
with them.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to, if I might, to the chairman, 
the gentleman from Virginia, add my thanks and congratulations to the 
staff that he named, and I wanted to add, if I might, the minority 
staff, Cheryl Smith, Christy Cockburn, my associate staff, Bob Bonner, 
Terry Peel, and I wanted to thank all of them collectively together. 
Without all of their work, we could not have brought the bill out.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with regard to my support for 
the Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. I must 
commend Congressman Frank Wolf, the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation of the Appropriations Committee, for taking the 
necessary steps to produce a balanced bill which weighs the needs to 
our Nation's infrastructure against the need to organize our fiscal 
house.
  The state of our Nation's infrastructure is one of the most vital 
issues facing this Congress and our country. The free flow of commerce 
over the Nation's highways, railways, rivers, oceans, and air provides 
the basis for our national economic stability. There would be no 
commerce absent of the means to transport goods over the miles of 
infrastructure found throughout this great country. Furthermore, the 
ability to defend this country in a time of need will become 
exponentially more difficult if we neglect transportation issues.
  Funding for the New Jersey Urban Core project, currently appropriated 
in the bill, is vital to the residents of my State. It is critical in 
terms of jobs and essential in regards to our mass transit system. The 
Urban Core project seeks to link several existing New Jersey transit 
rail lines and modernize the equipment and facilities in order to make 
travel on the rail network quicker, safer, and more convenient to all 
current and future patrons. Innovative programs of this nature are a 
developmental imperative. They will propel our country into the 21st 
century.

[[Page H 7605]]

  Today, guaranteeing safe and efficient transportation is of the 
utmost importance. Planes, trains, and automobiles are the chosen modes 
of transportation. In a world increasingly characterized and reliant 
upon the clock, dependable mechanisms of transportation are crucial. In 
the race to provide efficient transportation, we must remember that a 
strong emphasis on safety is our duty.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this measure because it 
will move our country forward to meet the future transportation and 
infrastructure needs of American citizens.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
2002, the fiscal year 1996 Transportation Appropriations bill. Though 
this bill possesses many provisions that are flawed, I am particularly 
concerned by the bill's repeal of section 13(c) of the Federal Transit 
Act that protects transit employees' collective bargaining rights.
  Contrary to the representations of the proponents of this bill, the 
record of section 13(c) has been a success. The program is designed to 
protect the rights of America's transit workers by requiring the 
secretary of labor to certify that local transit authorities have met 
certain criteria for preserving transit workers' existing collective 
bargaining rights, and protects workers from losses caused by 
transportation grants made by the Federal Government. The Department of 
Labor has effectively and efficiently administered this program for 
over 30 years.
  Unfortunately, the repeal of section 13(c) represents a clear and 
unrestrained attack on the working men and women of this country. It is 
no coincidence that this attack has been included in this 
appropriations bill. Contrary to the claims of the new Republican 
majority that the repeal of section 13(c) will result in cost savings 
and increased efficiency, the majority's real objective is to take away 
from the American worker the rights and privileges they have worked so 
hard and so long to achieve.
  The impressive performance of section 13(c) is reflected in more than 
1,000 grants, totaling more than $4 billion, that are distributed every 
year while protecting the rights of transit workers. This successful 
partnership with the Federal Government has helped ensure that an 
infusion of Federal funds is not used to diminish the living standards 
of other workers in local communities. Since 1964, the bipartisan 
support
 of section 13(c) has been reaffirmed in legislation enacted in 1968, 
1974, 1982, 1987 and most recently in 1991 in the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act.

  For over 30 years, the transit employees collective bargaining and 
job protection program have served to help ensure collective bargaining 
rights for over 200,000 public and private sector transit workers 
throughout this Nation. There is no doubt that this program now under 
attack has made tremendous progress in the areas of job security, fair 
wages, and working conditions for thousands of Americans in the 
transportation industry.
  Not only has the section 13(c) program improved the lives of transit 
workers and their families, it has also brought remarkable labor 
relations stability to a transit industry that has undergone dramatic 
changes. Further, the program has served to ensure the structured 
introduction of technological and service improvements for all 
Americans. This added stability has decreased the cost of 
transportation to industry, local governments and private citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, beyond the fact that the section 13(c) program has been 
good for America, it has also proven to be the right thing to do. The 
rights of workers to organize and use collective bargaining as a means 
of protecting work rights is essential to the American labor movement. 
The rights of transit employees to choose their representatives and 
engage in collective bargaining is just as fundamental. Without the 
collective bargaining provisions of section 13(c), the scales would be 
unfairly weighted in favor of management and against the working men 
and women of America.
  I would also like to add that the attempt by the majority to curtail 
worker rights is also inappropriate because it circumvents the 
appropriate authorizing committee that should consider the proposed 
repeal of this important law. With limited opportunity for debate and 
hearings this repeal of the section 13(c) legislation in an 
appropriations bill is clearly an unjustifiable circumvention of the 
procedures of the United States House of Representatives. This attempt 
to short circuit the process can only have one result, the compromise 
of not only the rights of American transit workers but also the right 
of the American public.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, H.R. 2002 reflects my colleagues' desire to 
sacrifice the interests and obligations of this country to the working 
men and women of America in exchange for short term gain and 
inequality. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, section 330 of the bill relates to the 
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program which is administered by the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The section imposes a 
1-year freeze on the ability of NHTSA to increase the CAFE standards 
for passenger cars and light trucks and vans.
  This provision has strong bipartisan support as evidenced by a Dear 
Colleague letter circulated last week which includes the signatures of 
the minority leader and the minority whip, as well as several of my 
Republican colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, NHTSA is in the process of rulemaking activity on CAFE, 
which could result in a sharp increase in the standards for light 
trucks and vans. Because of the light truck market now represents over 
40 percent of total vehicle sales and it is a segment which is 
dominated by domestic manufacturers this action would be devastating to 
the Nation's economy.
  The purpose of Section 330 is to establish a pause in this rulemaking 
process, to give the Congress an opportunity to review the CAFE 
program, to determine if the underlying statute, written more than 20 
years ago, is still adequate in light of current circumstances. In 
fact, the authorizing committee has already begun that process, with a 
hearing which was held last Monday in the Commerce Committee's Energy 
and Power Subcommittee.
  In offering this provision in subcommittee, it was my intent that 
NHTSA would withhold any further action directed toward increasing CAFE 
standards, and that the CAFE standards for light trucks and vans for 
the 1998 model year, which must be issued during fiscal year 1996 to 
meet industry's lead-time requirements, should be identical to the 
standard that is currently in effect for those vehicles for the 1997 
model year. This intent is clearly stated in the committee report which 
accompanies the legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to clarify that it was the committee's 
intent that although this provision would not take effect until the 
fiscal year which begins on October 1, we fully expect that the agency 
will follow its regular rulemaking process, and will not rush to action 
on any increase in CAFE standards, in order to try and beat this 
deadline. Such an action would clearly be counter to the intent of the 
House, and would not be viewed favorably by this member of the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2002. I 
commend Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Coleman, and all the members 
of the subcommittee, for their hard work on this legislation.
  I am pleased that the bill before House today includes $85.5 million 
for the Westside Light Rail Project in my district. Westside Light Rail 
is the Oregon's top transportation priority, and an integral part of 
our State's planning for the 21st century. Combined with Oregon's land-
use planning laws, Westside Light Rail will serve as the heart of 
efforts to manage the massive growth our region expects over the next 
20 years.
  Earlier this year, I was pleased to help organize a remarkable panel 
which testified in favor of Westside Light Rail before the fiscal year 
1996 Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. It included both 
Democratic and Republican members of Congress, State and local 
officials, as well as representatives from the private sector business, 
all of whom strongly support the project. All these groups know that 
Westside Light Rail is a integral link with virtually every facet of 
our community in Oregon, and is key to our future. Oregon is so 
supportive that in 1990, voters approved a bond for $125 million by 74 
percent. In fact, the project to Hillsboro is an overmatch--we are 
providing 33 percent in local funds rather than the required 20 
percent.
  This year, I was proud to meet with every member of the 
Transportation Appropriation Subcommittee and bring them up to date on 
Westside's progress. Westside Light Rail is one of my top priorities in 
Congress, and I am pleased that this legislation recognizes its 
importance to Oregon's future.
  I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 2002.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, since my election to this House in November 1990, I 
have been an ardent supporter of the line-item veto. For the most part, 
our effort has been bipartisan. Not only have Republicans worked for 
this concept, but many Democrats, including President Clinton, have 
labored in this effort. In the last Congress, I helped to forge the 
agreement which brought similar legislation to the House under 
Democratic leadership. That legislation passed this House, not once but 
twice, with bipartisan support only to die in the other House.
  Recognizing the bipartisan support and the overwhelming public 
support for the concept of a line-item veto, the Republicans included 
it in their Contract for America. It was called a ``cornerstone'' of 
the contract and was filed 

[[Page H 7606]]
as H.R. 2, the second piece of legislation filed this Congress.
  During debate on H.R. 2, Mr. Solomon, chairman of the Rules Committee 
stated:

       We got a Democrat President and here is Solomon up here 
     fighting for the same line-item veto for that Democrat 
     President.

  In the same debate, Speaker Gingrich stated:

       We have a bipartisan majority that is going to vote for the 
     line-item veto. For those who think that this city has to 
     always break down into partisanship, you have a Republican 
     majority giving to a Democratic President this year without 
     any gimmicks an increased power over spending, which we think 
     is an important step for America, and therefore it is an 
     important step on a bipartisan basis to do it for the 
     President of the United State [sic] without regard to party 
     or ideology.

  With great fanfare, on February 6, President Reagan's birthday, the 
House passed H.R. 2, line-item veto by a vote of 294 to 134. The other 
body has also passed its own version of line-item veto.
  But then what happened? Nothing. Since the House and Senate versions 
of the line-item veto differ, the normal course of legislative action 
would be to appoint members of a conference committee to work out those 
differences and report back the legislation to both Houses for final 
passage. It could take a few days or even a few weeks to resolve the 
differences. But much more complex legislation has been conferenced in 
much less time.
  If the line-item veto were truly a priority, you would think that 
conferees would have been appointed immediately and the conference 
would have moved forward rapidly toward final enactment. However, to 
date no conferees have even been appointed.
  I have been extremely disturbed by the news coming from the 
Republican leadership.
  On June 7, the headline of the Washington Times read: ``GOP Puts Line 
Item on Slow Track.''
  In that article, Chairman Solomon is quoted:

       Perhaps the best thing is to wait until fall when the 
     Budget is finished. There is no sense in going through with 
     it now.

  On  July  13,  the  headline  of  the Washington Times 
read: ``Line Item Veto * * * Bites the Dust.''
  In that article, Speaker Gingrich is quoted: ``My sense is that we 
won't get to it this year.''
  Last week the headline of the New York Times read: ``Push for Line 
Item Veto Runs Out of Steam.''
  The article stated:

       No Republican in Congress could be found who would concede 
     that he or she is less eager for a line-item veto now that 
     Republicans are in control, but many, like Mr. McCain and Mr. 
     Solomon, ascribe those feelings to unidentified colleagues.

  Mr. Chairman, the people of the United States and Members of this 
House overwhelmingly support line-item veto. It is unacceptable for the 
leadership to tell them we will pass it, and then sit and do nothing.
  Therefore, last week I went to Rules Committee and asked for a rule 
to allow me to offer an amendment to add line-item veto to the 
transportation appropriations bill.
  The committee apparently thought it was such a great idea, that they 
made it in order for Chairman Solomon or Chairman Clinger to offer such 
an amendment, stating that it was their idea.
  Pride of authorship is not important here; passage of the line-item 
veto is. Therefore, I support the Solomon amendment and urge the 
gentleman from New York to offer it now.
  However, it appears that this amendment will not be offered if the 
Speaker promises to appoint conferees. If that is the case, the 
appointment of conferees at this late date, and only after being forced 
to do so by this amendment, will appear to be a hollow and transparent 
act calculated to once again remove the line-item veto from public 
attention and further delay any significant action to keep our promises 
and enact the line-item veto.
  I ask the chairman of the Rules Committee to offer his amendment. If 
he does not wish to do so, I ask him to appoint me his designee to 
offer the amendment so that line-item veto will be taken off the slow 
track, will not run out of steam, will not bite the dust, but will be 
placed where it belongs on the fast track toward bipartisan enactment.
  Mr. Chairman, if he is not here to do so, I send an amendment to the 
desk.


                     amendment offered by mr. orton

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows;

       Amendment offered by Mr. Orton:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:
                        TITLE V--LINE ITEM VETO


                        line item veto authority

       Sec. 501. (a) In General.--Not withstanding the provisions 
     of part B of title X of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and subject to the 
     provisions of this section, the President may rescind all or 
     part of the dollar amount of any discretionary budget 
     authority specified in this Act, or the conference report or 
     joint explanatory statement accompanying the conference 
     report on this Act, if the President--
       (1) determines that such rescission--
       (A) would help reduce the Federal budget deficit;
       (B) will not impair any essential Government functions; and
       (C) will not harm the national interest; and
       (2) notifies the Congress of such rescission by a special 
     message not later than 10 calendar days (not including 
     Sundays) after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Deficit Reduction.--If the President submits a special 
     message under subsection (a), the President may also propose 
     to reduce the appropriate discretionary spending limit set 
     forth in section 601(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 by an amount that does not exceed the total amount of 
     discretionary budget authority rescinded by the special 
     message.
       (c) Limitation.--A special message submitted by the 
     President under subsection (a) may not change any prohibition 
     or limitation of discretionary budget authority set forth in 
     this Act.


              line item veto effective unless disapproved

       Sec. 502. (a) In General.--Any amount of budget authority 
     rescinded under this title as set forth in a special message 
     by the President shall be deemed canceled unless, during the 
     period described in subsection (b), a rescission disapproval 
     bill making available all of the amount rescinded is enacted 
     into law.
       (b) Congressional Review Period.--The period referred to in 
     subsection (a) is--
       (1) a congressional review period of 20 calendar days of 
     session, beginning on the 1st calendar day of session after 
     the date of submission of the special message, during which 
     the Congress must complete action on the rescission 
     disapproval bill and present such bill to the President for 
     approval or disapproval;
       (2) after the period provided in paragraph (1), an 
     additional 10 days (not including Sundays) during which the 
     President may exercise his authority to sign or veto the 
     rescission disapproval bill; and
       (3) if the President vetoes the rescission disapproval bill 
     during the period provided in paragraph (2), an additional 5 
     calendar days of session after the date of the veto.
       (c) Special Rule.--If a special message is transmitted by 
     the President under this title and the last session of the 
     Congress adjourns sine die before the expiration of the 
     period described in subsection (b), the rescission shall not 
     take effect. The message shall be deemed to have been 
     retransmitted on the 1st Monday in February of the succeeding 
     Congress and the review period referred to in subsection (b) 
     (with respect to such message) shall run beginning after such 
     1st day.


             congressional consideration of line item veto

       Sec. 503. (a) Presidential Special Message.--If the 
     President rescinds any budget authority as provided in this 
     title, the President shall transmit to both Houses of 
     Congress a special message specifying--
       (1) the amount of budget authority rescinded;
       (2) any account, department, or establishment of the 
     Government to which such budget authority is available for 
     obligation, and the specific project or governmental 
     functions involved;
       (3) the reasons and justifications for the determination to 
     rescind budget authority pursuant to this title;
       (4) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated 
     fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect of the rescission; and
       (5) all actions, circumstances, and considerations relating 
     to or bearing upon the rescission and the decision to effect 
     the rescission, and to the maximum extent practicable, the 
     estimated effect of the rescission upon the objects, 
     purposes, and programs for which the budget authority is 
     provided.
       (b) Transmission of Message to House and Senate.--
       (1) A special message transmitted under this title shall be 
     transmitted to the House of Representatives and the Senate on 
     the same day, and shall be delivered to the Clerk of the 
     House of Representatives if the House is not in session, and 
     to the Secretary of the Senate if the Senate is not in 
     session. A special message so transmitted shall be referred 
     to the appropriate committees of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate. Such message shall be printed as a document 
     of each House.
       (2) A special message transmitted under this title shall be 
     printed in the first issue of 

[[Page H 7607]]
     the Federal Register published after such transmittal.
       (c) Introduction of Rescission Disapproval Bills.--The 
     procedures set forth in subsection (d) shall apply to any 
     rescission disapproval bill introduced in the House of 
     Representatives not later than the 3d calendar day of session 
     beginning on the day after the date of submission of a 
     special message by the President under this title.
       (d) Consideration in the House of Representatives.--
       (1) The committee of the House of Representatives to which 
     a rescission disapproval bill is referred shall report it 
     without amendment, and with or without recommendation, not 
     later than the 8th calendar day of session after the date of 
     its introduction. If the committee fails to report the bill 
     within that period, it is in order to move that the House 
     discharge the committee from further consideration of the 
     bill. A motion to discharge may be made only by an individual 
     favoring the bill (but only after the legislative day on 
     which a Member announces to the House the Member's intention 
     to do so). The motion is highly privileged. Debate thereon 
     shall be limited to not more than 1 hour, the time to be 
     divided in the House equally between a proponent and an 
     opponent. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening 
     motion. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion 
     is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order.
       (2) After a rescission disapproval bill is reported or the 
     committee has been discharged from further consideration, it 
     is in order to move that the House resolve into the Committee 
     of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
     consideration of the bill. All points of order against the 
     bill and against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     motion is highly privileged. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on that motion to its adoption without 
     intervening motion. A motion to reconsider the vote by which 
     the motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in 
     order. During consideration of the bill in the Committee of 
     the Whole, the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. General debate shall proceed without intervening 
     motion, shall be confined to the bill, and shall not exceed 2 
     hours equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an 
     opponent of the bill. No amendment to the bill is in order, 
     except any Member may move to strike the disapproval of any 
     rescission or rescissions of budget authority, if supported 
     by 49 other Members. At the conclusion of the consideration 
     of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and 
     report the bill to the House. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion. A motion to 
     reconsider the vote on passage of the bill shall not be in 
     order.
       (3) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the 
     application of the rules of the House of Representatives to 
     the procedure relating to a bill described in subsection (a) 
     shall be decided without debate.
       (4) It shall not be in order to consider more than 1 bill 
     described in subsection (c) or more than 1 motion to 
     discharge described in paragraph (1) with respect to a 
     particular special message.
       (5) Consideration of any rescission disapproval bill under 
     this subsection is governed by the rules of the House of 
     Representatives except to the extent specifically provided by 
     the provisions of this title.
       (e) Consideration in the Senate.--
       (1) Any rescission disapproval bill received in the Senate 
     from the House shall be considered in the Senate pursuant to 
     the provisions of this title.
       (2) Debate in the Senate on any rescission disapproval bill 
     and debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, 
     shall be limited to not more than 10 hours. The time shall be 
     equally divided between, and controlled by, the majority 
     leader and the minority leader or their designees.
       (3) Debate in the Senate on any debatable motions or appeal 
     in connection with such bill shall be limited to 1 hour, to 
     be equally divided between, and controlled by the mover and 
     the manager of the bill, except that in the event the manager 
     of the bill is in favor of any such motion or appeal, the 
     time in opposition thereto shall be controlled by the 
     minority leader or his designee. Such leaders, or either of 
     them, may, from the time under their control on the passage 
     of the bill, allot additional time to any Senator during the 
     consideration of any debatable motion or appeal.
       (4) A motion to further limit debate is not debatable. A 
     motion to recommit (except a motion to recommit with 
     instructions to report back within a specified number of days 
     not to exceed 1, not counting any day on which the Senate is 
     not in session) is not in order.
       (f) Points of Order.--
       (1) It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any 
     rescission disapproval bill that relates to any matter other 
     than the rescission of budget authority transmitted by the 
     President under this title.
       (2) It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any 
     amendment to a rescission disapproval bill.
       (3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) may be waived or suspended in 
     the Senate only by a vote of three-fifths of the members duly 
     chosen and sworn.


                              definitions

       Sec. 504. As used in this title:
       (1) The term ``rescission disapproval bill'' means a bill 
     that only disapproves, in whole, rescissions of discretionary 
     budget authority in a special message transmitted by the 
     President under this title and--
       (A) the matter after the enacting clause of which is as 
     follows: ``That the Congress disapproves each rescission of 
     discretionary budget authority of the President as submitted 
     by the President in a special message on ________.'', the 
     blank space being filled in with the appropriate date and the 
     public law to which the message relates; and
       (B) the title of which is as follows: ``A bill to 
     disapprove the recommendations submitted by the President on 
     ________.'', the blank space being filled in with the date of 
     submission of the special message and the public law to which 
     the message relates.
       (2) The term ``calendar days of session'' shall mean only 
     those days on which both Houses of Congress are in session.


                            judicial review

       Sec. 505. (a) Expedited Review.--
       (1) Any Member of Congress may bring an action, in the 
     United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 
     for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief on the ground 
     that any provision of this title violates the Constitution.
       (2) A copy of any complaint in an action brought under 
     paragraph (1) shall be promptly delivered to the Secretary of 
     the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and 
     each House of Congress shall have the right to intervene in 
     such action.
       (3) Any action brought under paragraph (1) shall be heard 
     and determined by a three-judge court in accordance with 
     section 2284 of title 28, United States Code.
       (4) Nothing in this section or in any other law shall 
     infringe upon the right of the House of Representatives to 
     intervene in an action brought under paragraph (1) without 
     the necessity of adopting a resolution to authorize such 
     intervention.
       (b) Appeal to Supreme Court.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any order of the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia that is issued pursuant to 
     an action brought under paragraph (1) of subsection (a) shall 
     be reviewable by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the 
     United States. Any such appeal shall be taken by a notice of 
     appeal filed within 10 days after such order is entered; and 
     the jurisdictional statement shall be filed within 30 days 
     after such order is entered. No stay of an order issued 
     pursuant to an action brought under paragraph (1) of 
     subsection (a) shall be issued by a single Justice of the 
     Supreme Court.
       (c) Expedited Consideration.--It shall be the duty of the 
     District Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme 
     Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to 
     expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of 
     any matter brought under subsection (a).

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


                             point of order

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment, because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2, 
rule XXI.
  The rule states, in pertinent part, no amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law. The 
amendment imposes additional duties and modifies existing powers and 
duties.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The amendment is clearly legislative in nature. The amendment amends 
the Budget Act of 1974 and creates a new mechanism for line-item veto 
not currently in existing law, provides a congressional procedure for 
expedited consideration of bills disapproving recommendations of the 
President, creates auditing reports by the GAO, and provides for 
special standing in the courts for judicial review.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia raises a point of order 
against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  Since the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] is not the designee of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the Chair asks the gentleman 
from Utah, does he wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. ORTON. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  However, the amendment which I submitted to the desk is not the 
Solomon amendment. It is slightly different. It is the amendment which 
I submitted to the Committee on Rules asking to be made in order.
  The Committee on Rules did not make my amendment in order but changed 
it slightly and made it in order for the gentleman from New 

[[Page H 7608]]
York [Mr. Solomon] to present or the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger]. They have chosen not to do so.
  I believe that line-item veto is so critical that we cannot simply 
sit back and do nothing.
  The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman address the point of order?
  Mr. ORTON. Not yet.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must address the point of order.
  Mr. ORTON. I am addressing the point of order. I believe that the 
line-item veto is appropriate to place on the transportation 
appropriations bill. The Committee on Rules felt so also by making it 
in order for the chairman of the committee to submit.
  It is my intention, I believe that each of us must go on the record 
as to whether or not we feel it is important to continue pushing line-
item veto, and I will announce that if the Chair rules against me on 
the point of order, that I will appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask 
for a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] is 
altogether legislative in character, and, as such, is not in order on a 
general appropriation bill under clause 2, rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is: Shall the decision of the Chair stand 
as the judgment of the committee?
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
                             recorded vote

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 281, 
noes 139, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 569]

                               AYES--281

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--139

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bonior
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Condit
     Costello
     Cramer
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bachus
     Bateman
     Collins (MI)
     Emerson
     Forbes
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Jefferson
     Lantos
     Markey
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Rose
     Smith (NJ)

                              {time}  1659

  Mr. RUSH and Mr. PETERSON of Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Messrs. BERMAN, McDERMOTT, FIELDS of Louisiana, and MOLLOHAN changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                              {time}  1700

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, under the rule the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hastings of Washington) 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, pursuant to House Resolution 194, he reported the 
bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole.
  The speaker pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The amendment printed in section 2 of House Resolution 194 is 
adopted.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 361, 
nays 61, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 570]

                               YEAS--361

     Abercrombie
      Ackerman
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE) 

[[Page H 7609]]

     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--61

     Allard
     Andrews
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Engel
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Hancock
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Kaptur
     Lofgren
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pickett
     Rangel
     Roth
     Rush
     Sanders
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Volkmer
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bachus
     Bateman
     Collins (MI)
     Forbes
     Greenwood
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Jefferson
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Rose
     Williams

                              {time}  1718

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Bachus for, with Mr. Moakley against.

  Mr. ROTH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________