[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 166 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10755-H10773]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1145
   CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2002, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 241 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 241

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentlewoman 
from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, under this particular resolution, is the 
legislative branch appropriation affected by this particular rule, or 
is it exclusively the Transportation branch?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This rule will make in order the Department 
of Transportation Appropriation conference report.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, since the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. 
Waldholtz] has herself circulated a letter on this gift ban issue, does 
this resolution and rule permit the offering of gift ban or lobby 
reform legislation, as the Republican whip notice said we would have an 
opportunity to consider this morning?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This rule does not relate to that subject.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] 
is recognized.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 241 provides for the 
consideration of the conference report for H.R. 2002, the fiscal year 
1996 transportation appropriations bill. The rule waives all points of 
order against the conference report. The waiver covers provisions 
relating to legislation and unauthorized items on a general 
appropriations bill and, further, protects certain provisions which 
exceed the scope of differences between the House and the Senate.
  Waivers under the rule are in accordance with previous tradition on 
appropriations conference reports, and in fact, the rule was reported 
out of committee on a voice vote with no controversy or opposition.
  H.R. 2002 provides critical funding for improving and investing in 
our Nation's infrastructure and transportation needs. For example, the 
bill increases funding for the Federal Aviation Administration in order 
to improve aviation safety. It provides $1.45 billion for the airport 
improvement program, which is the same level of spending as last year, 
and provides $19.9 billion for total highway program spending.
  At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the bill recognizes the need to 
restructure and downsize the Federal Government. This bill includes 
provisions to terminate the Interstate Commerce Commission, reduce 
transit operating assistance funds, and cut administrative expenses of 
the Department of Transportation, including a requirement to 
consolidate the Department's extensive field offices, for a savings of 
$25 million.
   Mr. Speaker, importantly, this bill also changes how we make our 
funding decisions in this Congress. This bill totally eliminates 
funding for highway demonstration projects, which previously were a way 
to funnel more money to favored lawmakers' districts, and instead uses 
these funds for the benefit of the entire Nation.
  Under this bill, we spend next year virtually all of the highway 
trust funds collected instead of stockpiling those funds to mask the 
true size of the national debt.
   Mr. Speaker, this bill reflects fiscal responsibility, and at the 
same time provides sufficient funding for our transportation and 
infrastructure needs.
   Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt the rule and the 
underlying bill.
   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Utah [Mrs. 
Waldholtz] for yielding me the customary one-half hour of debate time, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
   Mr. Speaker, we do not oppose this rule. It is a traditional rule 
for a conference report on an appropriations bill, waiving all points 
of order against the conference report and against its consideration.
  However, we would like to point out to the membership our concerns 
about the legislation that the rule makes in order, which provides 
appropriations for transportation programs for fiscal 1996.
  Our primary concern is that this bill shortchanges, we believe, many 
valuable services that the American people have come to depend upon for 
the safety and reliability of our Nation's transportation systems. For 
example, the legislation cuts AMTRAK rail passenger service by $158 
million; it cuts the Coast Guard by $281 million; it cuts the Federal 
Transit Administration by $563 million; and it cuts the Federal 
Aviation Administration by $178 million.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to note that the House Democratic 
conferees took unaminous exception to one provision in the conference 
report, amendment number 174, which allows the Federal Aviation 
Administration Administrator to waive current law pertaining to labor 
management and employee relations. The reasons for our Members' 
objections to this particular provision will be one of the issues 
discussed during the course of debate on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, to repeat: we have no objections to this rule, and we 
urge its passage so that the House can proceed to consideration of the 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
additional time at this point, and so I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me. I basically take the floor to talk about the FAA, because this 
is a rule bringing up the transportation appropriations in which the 
FAA is getting more money.
  Let me say that I am here today pleading with the FAA to please, 
please come clean with the Denver media and the people who live in 
Denver. Let me tell you why.
  Mr. Speaker, many of you know we had a huge snowstorm. We have a 
brandnew airport. I think people have read a lot about that new 
airport, and they read a lot of negative things about what happened in 
the control tower at that airport during the snowstorm. The roof 
started leaking like mad. They had water coming down over all of the 
instruments. They were putting plastic over all of the instruments. The 
problem has been that the FAA will not let even one camera in there to 
see it.
  Yesterday another tile fell on one of the air traffic controllers' 
heads. Luckily, she was not hurt, but they made her sign all sorts of 
statements and all sorts of everything else. They have also had to 
remove two air traffic controllers, take them out of service because 
apparently the leaks are so bad that there is no place to sit in those 
positions.
  Now, here is the problem: Denver is getting dinged for all of this. 
Everybody is going to laugh at Denver, laugh at Colorado. Denver did 
not build that tower. That tower was totally under the control of the 
Federal Aviation Authority. They oversaw it, and they 

[[Page H10756]]
built it. They selected a contractor who has had, I guess, some 
problems in the past with roofs. That has been the rumor; but whatever, 
they ought to be big enough to come out and talk about the problems.
  No one expects a brandnew facility like this to kind of open up and 
leak like it did when this kind of a storm comes through, then to be in 
this state of denial where they are denying access so cameras cannot 
even come in and to refuse to come out and really talk to people about 
what you are going to do to get this up and going is very troubling.
  There were some other problems with the ground radar. I understand, 
and I was very pleased, that the FAA was out there, they went out, they 
looked at it, they decertified it, but then they recertified it and 
turned it back on. Many of the people we have talked to out there have 
said that they just turned it off, they turned it on, it did not solve 
the problem. It is not seen in that corner of the airport where it was 
seen at the time the almost-accident occurred.
  So we do not want the FAA trying to paint over that either and put a 
happy face on it.
  Mr. Speaker, the FAA has had a model record in the world for air 
traffic safety, and I absolutely cannot figure out why we are kind of 
getting the brushoff and why they are not dealing straight with the 
Denver media. If they want to keep this reputation, they have to come 
clean. This is not a fungus. It can thrive in sunshine, but if they do 
not let it in the sunshine, people will wonder what kind of a fungus 
the FAA is growing.
  The taxpayers and everyone else made a huge investment. This 
investment was to add to the capacity. This airport would have been 
totally closed down in this storm had it been the old airport. This is 
to be an all-weather airport. When you have the air traffic control 
tower built so poorly that you are going to have water coming in and 
people are having to read the instruments under plastic because the 
water might short something out, and now you cannot even have as many 
people up there and you cannot even let the cameras in to see it 
because no one wants to admit it happened on their watch. That is why 
people are cynical about government.
  So I plead with the FAA, I plead with them, to go and come clean. Let 
the media see what happened, tell us how you are going to fix that. Do 
not put it on my city. They did not do that. You oversaw it. Take the 
responsibility. Stand up, stand for something, because I think the 
citizens of Colorado are getting to be a little impatient with all of 
this, everybody pointing at everyone else and then locking the doors so 
noboby can really get in and see.
  If the contractor made a mistake, go get the contractor. Tell us how 
you are going to fix it. Make sure that airport does what the taxpayers 
paid for: Become the best all-weather and the safest all-weather 
airport in the world.
  I am a pilot. I understand how important that is. We were so proud of 
how it worked on the opening day when we had a terrible, terrible 
snowstorm and everything went like this. The ceiling did not collapse 
or leak at that point and the ground radar was working properly, I 
guess, at that point.
  Mr. Speaker, we want it to work. This is like getting a new car and 
it falls down as you drive it out of the showroom. Get it fixed, FAA, 
because we are getting impatient.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, what is happening here this morning is 
truly amazing. By this rule, we set the order of debate here in this 
House, and last night we were given an indication of what the order of 
debate would be, and again, as recently as a few hours ago this morning 
we were given an indication of what the order of debate would be in the 
official Republican whip notice. That order was to consider the 
legislative branch appropriations bill. With that in mind, the 
Democratic Caucus met this morning and overwhelmingly voted to support 
the gift ban legislation, the gift ban rule to be more specific, that 
the Senate has approved on a bipartisan basis 98 to 0.
  However, for some reason, bipartisanship in this building stops in 
the middle of the Capitol rotunda, because instead of dealing with the 
issue of gifts this morning, we are dealing with another piece of 
legislation all along. What has happened is, a giant pulled stamp 
should be put on the legislative appropriations bill. Right after the 
Democratic Caucus votes for reform, and tries to change business as 
usual here, deal with this issue of gifts, what happens? The measure is 
pulled.
  Mr. Speaker, I maintain that it is appropriate for this body to focus 
on reforming itself before, not after, it deals with all of these 
substantive issues. It is particularly ironic, given the fact that the 
gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] has circulated a letter to all 
of her colleagues in favor of gift ban reform, and yet we have had 
opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to vote on it, not just 
to talk about it, not just to issue a press release about it, not just 
to posture about it, but to vote about it and do something about these 
gifts, and the Republican majority has continually voted the other way, 
voted against reform from the first day of this session when a gift ban 
item came up. Through June, twice, through July, and in October of this 
year, the last time the legislative branch appropriations were up, the 
same thing happened, and now today, when we have an opportunity to look 
in this box and see what gifts people can still be given, the snow is 
about to fall, I understand, in Colorado, where the gentlewoman from 
Colorado just spoke.
  You need a trip to the ski slopes? It is still permitted. You need a 
little chateaubriand and Cabernet Sauvignon? It is still permitted. Do 
you need tickets to the World Series or the Super Bowl? It is still 
permitted to be a gift to Members of this body. The only thing that is 
preventing that problem being dealt with here as our colleagues, 
Republican and Democrat alike have dealt with it in the U.S. Senate, is 
the obstructionism and the objection of Speaker Gingrich and the 
Republican leadership.
  Indeed, the first vote that we took on this issue when every single 
Republican voted against gift reform was on the first day of this 
session, where people stood at this very spot and said, let us change 
business as usual, let us clean up the relationship between legislators 
and lobbyists, and the response of Speaker Gingrich to that initiative 
was that ``it was an astonishingly narrow and self-destructive act.''

                              {time}  1200

  What a comment by those who claim to be revolutionaries, who say they 
really want to change the way business operates in this House. It is 
time to address the issue of gifts, and no amount of press releases and 
no amount of speeches can make up for the continual delay. At every 
opportunity immediately after action is called for and a united 
Democratic Caucus gets behind this issue, the Members of the Republican 
Party jerk it from the agenda.
  The American people are not going to stand for continual delay, for 
continued obstructionism, for continued objection to really changing 
the way this business of the Congress operates. They want an open 
House. They want the kind of revolution they were promised but have not 
gotten from our Republican colleagues.
  This is a bill about transportation. It deals with railroads. It 
deals with highways. It deals with airplanes. Whether you fly, you ride 
the rails, or you take a trip somewhere, this can still occur today 
under the rules that do not apply in this House.
  Last year the Democratic Congress, before I ever got here, passed a 
rule to deal with that, passed it twice, and it was killed by 
Republicans in the Senate.
  This year we have asked for action on it again. All we get is it 
pulled from the agenda so that the legitimate desires of the American 
people to deal with the issue of real reform in this body, changing 
business as usual, have been thwarted. If the American people make 
their voice known that they want real change, not just phony change, we 
are going to get that change.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am glad to have an opportunity to talk about what is really 
happening on gift ban legislation in this Congress. I am very 
encouraged, Mr. Speaker, that 

[[Page H10757]]
we are going to have an opportunity to give this issue the full hearing 
and vote on the floor that it deserves.
  The gentleman who just spoke objected to the fact that one item was 
pulled from the legislative agenda today. However, Mr. Speaker, I think 
it is very important to note that last night pursuant to a request from 
the minority there was a unanimous-consent agreement entered into to 
add 3 hours of general debate on the budget reconciliation package. The 
minority asked for that time; the majority decided to accede to their 
request, a unanimous-consent agreement was entered into.
  As a result, another item was pulled from the schedule to allow that 
3 hours of debate to be added to our agenda for today.
  But in particular, Mr. Speaker, on the gift ban legislation, last 
week those of us who have been working on this legislation from the 
beginning of this Congress received a commitment from our leadership, 
from the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the majority leader, that by 
the end of this week he would make an announcement as to when we would 
take up the gift ban legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to report 
that yesterday, Mr. Armey, in a discussion personally with me, 
reaffirmed his commitment that by the end of Friday of this week, he 
will make an announcement as to when we will take up a vote on the gift 
ban legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that we allow this 
legislation to go through the hearing process before this measure comes 
to the floor for a vote. I am not so vain, Mr. Speaker, as to believe 
that the bill is perfect in the way that I introduced it, because the 
gentleman said that I have circulated a letter on gift ban. I have done 
more than that, Mr. Speaker. I am the sponsor of the gift ban 
legislation that I hope will come, that I believe will be the vehicle 
that we will discuss when the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the 
majority leader, makes his announcement.
  But I am not so vain, Mr. Speaker, as to believe that that bill 
cannot be improved through the hearing process. It has not gone through 
the hearing process yet. That will be a part of the announcement that 
will come later this week.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the minority party this morning voted in 
conference to support the gift ban bill. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we have 
had some difficulty in getting some cosponsors from the other side of 
the aisle. The gentleman from California, Mr. Beilenson, my colleague 
on the Committee on Rules, was one of the very first to join me in 
sponsoring that gift ban legislation. I appreciate that.
  I would say, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle that we welcome their support and invite them, including the 
gentleman who previously spoke, who is not yet a cosponsor of that 
legislation, to join us in cosponsoring that legislation, so that, when 
we move it to the floor, we can have true bipartisan support of this 
important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to be sure that I am clear about 
what the gentlewoman has said. As I understand, her position is we do 
not take up gift ban this morning because we will have an announcement 
of a time at some future time, sometime this year, next year, when the 
majority leader will tell us that we can take up gift ban.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we are not taking up 
gift ban this morning because it is not germane to the Transportation 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
and with reference to the scheduling, she is not suggesting, I am sure 
she was here when I queried the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
about this at the conclusion of business last night. She is not 
suggesting that the additional 3 hours of debate which was scheduled 
for tonight until the legislative branch appropriations was pulled, 
that that has anything to do with this gift ban, is she?
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I was not here when the gentleman 
discussed this with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] last 
night. But I do know that the majority leader felt that it was 
important to allow the 3 hours of general debate that colleagues on his 
side of the aisle requested. And so this measure was pulled in an 
attempt to provide the gentleman with the time that his side has 
requested.
  Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we move 
on. This is not germane to the discussion of the rule that we are 
discussing.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colarado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I just was wanting to make clear, the 
gentlewoman said that there is going to be hearings on the gift ban 
legislation before it comes to the floor.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, what I said was that the majority leader 
will be announcing by the end of the this week, as he announced last 
week, a time at which we will take up gift ban legislation. As the 
sponsor of the measure, it certainly is my intent and I have expressed 
that to my leadership and believe that they will follow through with 
that to provide for a hearing to see if this is a measure that cannot 
be improved in some way.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to 
yield, one of the concerns I have had, and I just am sharing this for 
information, is that once we introduce and pass a bill here that is 
different from the one adopted in the Senate, it never becomes law.
  We have seen that one of the reasons we have never gotten this passed 
is this body has passed it before, and it goes to the other body, and 
it dies, or they pass a different one or they never get together.
  What I was hoping is that we could accept what the other body has 
done and then start with that as a new higher level of morality on this 
issue to then begin a new, a higher debate. Otherwise, I fear, if we go 
to hearings, I mean we did not even have hearings on Medicare or 
Medicaid.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able 
to report to the gentlewoman that whatever we do this gift ban does not 
need to go back to the Senate because the gift ban is a rule of the 
House and will not need to be acted on by the other body. So we have 
complete latitude within the House to do what we feel is appropriate 
without having to consult with the other body.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier].
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again, as my good 
friend from Utah has, remind our colleagues that we are debating the 
rule on the transportation appropriations legislation. I think that 
that is something that we should recognize.
  I was just a few minutes ago walking out in the Speaker's hallway and 
was headed back up to the Committee on Rules where we are at this point 
considering the rule for the reconciliation bill which will begin, as 
was said earlier, debate this evening and go through tomorrow.
  I heard the statement of my very good friend from Texas somehow 
implying, or I inferred from this, that we had not proceeded with the 
kinds of reforms that he believed were necessary. I have got to say 
that, having authored the opening day reforms, having worked with, and 
I see my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], during 1993 
on the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress that was 
established. And he worked on the issue of congressional reform before; 
we spent hours and hours and hours.
  We had 37 hearings in 1993; 243 witnesses came before us in 1993. The 
former majority leadership, as everyone knows, did absolutely nothing 
with the report that came forward. It was not until we won this new 
majority, and frankly many Democrats on a regular basis remind me of 
this, it was not until we won the new majority that we were able to 
implement the greatest reforms that this institution has seen in a half 
century.
  We all know what those reforms have been. They have been for the most 
part received extraordinarily well: changing the committee structure, 
eliminating 

[[Page H10758]]
proxy voting, insisting on congressional compliance with laws imposed 
on other Americans.
  To claim that nothing has been done in the area of reform, as many 
have, unfortunately, is absolutely preposterous.
  My friend from Utah is the sponsor, as she has just said, of 
legislation dealing with the gift ban issue. As we look at overhauling 
the entire makeup of the Federal Government, this clearly is a priority 
and something that we are going to be considering. But I believe that 
it is crazy to in any way imply that this historic 104th Congress has 
not brought about major reforms. I hope very much that the American 
people and our colleagues will recognize that.
  With that, I urge strong support of this rule that is being carried 
by my friend.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague from 
California, while he may have made some changes that Democrats 
recommended in the last Congress, when it came to separating the lobby 
and the legislators, he has done absolutely nothing. The only lobby 
this group cares about are the Girl Scouts and Catholic charities. They 
are all worked up about them lobbying. But when it comes to polluters, 
when it comes to loophole lawyers, they have done nothing but to fill 
this box to overflowing with gifts for Members of this House.
  The comments of the gentlewoman from Utah are absolutely amazing. I 
stood on this floor last night and asked the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] myself about the schedule for today. There was no 
suggestion that there would not be time today to take up the issue of 
gifts. Quite the contrary, he indicated we would be debating on into 
the evening with reference to this issue.
  The suggestion that we need to have a hearing is an unusual one 
because the lobby reform bill, if the gentlewoman will go up to the 
Speaker's dais, she will find it sitting there. It has been sitting 
there since it passed the Senate, not even a referral from the Speaker 
of the lobby reform bill.
  With reference to the gift ban itself, it is true that there was a 
secret closed-door meeting in front of the Ethics Committee concerning 
the possibility of a gift ban. They have had weeks and months to act on 
it, just as this body has had an opportunity to act. The suggestion 
that we ought to delay again today in order to wait not for action but 
for another promise from the majority leader that maybe some day, some 
year, some week, some month we will get around to doing something about 
this problem of gifts and lobby reform is the only thing crazy that I 
have heard, with all due respect to the gentleman from California who 
used that phrase.
  I suggest that, when the House has had an opportunity to vote on this 
measure and has been continually thwarted, it is time to give us an 
opportunity to take up the issue again today. There is no reason, this 
body will finish its business by mid-afternoon under this new schedule. 
There is absolutely no way that this Congress cannot reform itself 
today, if we were permitted to do so.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would simply remind the body that we are trying to move forward on 
a rule for the transportation appropriations budget. I think it is 
important that we move forward so that we can reach the other items on 
our agenda today, not only this bill. We have important discussions to 
enter into regarding the budget reconciliation bill, which is probably 
the most important bill that this Congress will take up this year.
  So I would simply say to my colleague that I do not think it is 
asking too much of our majority leader to be able to wait until Friday 
of this week to make an announcement as to when we will take up the 
gift ban measure and discuss other congressional reform measures beyond 
that which we have discussed here today so that we have an opportunity 
to finish the budget reconciliation bill, which we must move forward on 
today and tomorrow. Then the very next day we can expect an 
announcement as to when we are going to move this important gift ban 
legislation and other congressional reforms forward.
   Mr. Speaker, I would simply encourage my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle who feel so strongly about this issue to join me in 
sponsoring this legislation, as some of them have not yet done.
   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Utah that 
we appreciate her patience. If she will give us about 5 minutes more, 
we will be done.
   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I just want to follow up on 
some of the comments that were made by my colleague from Texas because 
I think he has made some important points.
  I have been involved, as the gentlewoman from Utah knows, in the 
bipartisan effort to reform this institution. I do so because I 
fervently believe that institutional reform is not a Democratic issue. 
It should not be a Democratic issue. It should not be a Republican 
issue. It should be an issue that brings the parties together because 
it is an issue that strikes at the integrity of this institution.
  I have to acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that I have been frustrated over 
the last 8 or 9 months because it reminds me about Lucy holding that 
football for Charlie Brown. Each time we get close to being able to 
debate these issues and bring them to the floor, the football is taken 
away. Another reason is given to us as to why we cannot debate gift 
reform and lobbying reform. I think it is important that we keep those 
two issues together.

                              {time}  1215

  I certainly will be encouraged if we do have a date certain for gift 
ban reform to be brought to this floor. I think it is important that we 
do so, but we cannot forget that equally important issue of lobbying 
reform. I find it somewhat perplexing and ironic that now the 
leadership wants to divide these two issues, bring the gift ban reform 
to the floor, but not bring the lobbying reform to the floor. Now why 
is this? Why do we not want to move them together? Both bills or both 
measures have gone through the Senate. They are both in excellent 
shape. We should have the opportunity to debate these and move them 
forward.
  I think that this legislative appropriations vehicle is a very good 
vehicle, and for my friends on the other side of the aisle who have not 
been through this exercise before, I can assure them that there are 
people, mostly people who have been around here many, many years longer 
than we have, who want to love these issues to death. That is what they 
want to do, they want to love these issues to death. They do not want 
these issues brought to the floor, and they are going to find as many 
ways as they can to kill it.
  That reminds me a little bit of the Paul Simon song ``Fifty Ways To 
Leave Your Lover.'' They are going to find 50 ways to make sure these 
measures do not go into effect to affect this institution.
  So, I think the people truly interested in reforming this 
institution, I think there are people on both sides, have to step up 
and say, ``Enough is enough is enough. It is time that the gift ban 
legislation comes to the floor, and it is definitely time that the 
lobbying legislation comes to the floor as well.''
  It is unfortunate that the legislative appropriations bill was 
pulled. I am hopeful, perhaps naively so, but I am hopeful that we will 
have enough push from people from both sides of the aisle that, when 
these measures come up again in the next day or two, that the 
leadership will finally acknowledge the reality that there is support 
from a majority of people in this institution to vote on it, and I 
truly hope that we do get a chance to vote on it.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Is the gentleman aware that Speaker Gingrich has kept 
since July 26 the lobby reform bill that 

[[Page H10759]]
the gentlewoman wants an announcement for us to wait on? It has been 
sitting there since July 26 and has not even been referred to a 
committee for any hearing or any appropriate action.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I was not aware of that until yesterday, 
and again I think it is something that should move forward.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. 
Waldholtz] for yielding this time to me. I just wanted to clarify a 
point.
  I came over to the floor hearing a rather lively, but nongermane, 
discussion about a gift ban in the context of the, as I understand it, 
transportation appropriations conference report, and I want to clarify 
a point that the gentlewoman made earlier. The gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Doggett] is one of the more eloquent and dynamic speakers in the 
House, is thundering along with righteous indignation about the fact 
that the House has not taken up a gift-ban related legislation to date. 
She made the point that she is the primary sponsor and author of a gift 
ban for House Members, and I want to clarify again that the gentleman 
from Texas is not a cosponsor of the gentlewoman's legislation.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. RIGGS. Actually, Mr. Speaker, I am asking the gentlewoman to 
clarify that point.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz].
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. That is correct.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. The gentleman is aware that I was the third person in 
this House to call for a discharge petition on the gift ban last 
spring, long before the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] bothered 
to even initiate any action, but if it is such a good idea, why do we 
not pass her bill today?
  Mr. RIGGS. Reclaiming my time, I would ask the gentleman, if he feels 
that strongly, to the point where he has signed a discharge petition, 
why he is unwilling or unable to cosponsor the gentlewoman's bill.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I am not only willing to cosponsor it, I am willing to 
vote for it today, and that is what I am asking for, a vote on her 
particular proposal, but what she wants is to delay it----
  Mr. RIGGS. Reclaiming my time, then the gentleman would have no 
objection then if we were to prepare a form now and add his name as a 
cosponsor of the gentlewoman's bill. We will just drop it right down 
here at the slot where it is appropriate to add cosponsors of 
congressional legislation at any time. If the gentleman would like to 
write that out, I would be happy to drop it in the slot.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I would ask unanimous consent to do it and further ask 
unanimous consent to take it up and consider it at this time so we can 
go on and vote it out of here right now if it is such a great idea.
  Mr. RIGGS. Reclaiming my time, unanimous consent is certainly not 
necessary for the gentleman to become a cosponsor. All that is 
necessary for the gentleman to become a cosponsor is for him to simply 
write something out to that effect, and I would be happy to provide it 
in the slot down there----
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to add my name as a 
cosponsor to the legislation of the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. 
Waldholtz].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). In the opinion of 
the Chair the chief sponsor of the bill is responsible for that.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am asking unanimous consent.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I believe unanimous consent is not 
necessary. We welcome the gentleman in support of our legislation.
  Mr. DOGGETT. She could do it right now by unanimous-consent request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is only the responsibility of the chief 
sponsor to add names.


    request for immediate consideration of lobby reform legislation

  Mr. DOGGETT. Then, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take up 
and consider that bill at this time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has already denied that 
recognition earlier.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the reason that we are forced 
to discuss this matter on a nongermane bill is because we are not 
allowed to discuss this matter when it is germane. The Republicans, I 
believe three or four times now, have opened up the rules of this House 
to make minor changes to the rules and the runnings of this House, and 
yet they have refused even at that time to take up the gift ban. All 
that is necessary for the gift ban in this House is for the Speaker 
just to say ``no'' to the lobbyists and just to say ``yes'' to letting 
the bill come up. It affects only the rules of the House, as the 
gentlewoman has pointed out, and it can be done in a matter of moments, 
and we can be done with it, and we can then go to the public and show 
them what we have severed, that relationship with lobbyists and with 
others who seek on a daily basis to shower the Members of this House 
with gifts hoping to seek an audience, time, effort, or whatever on 
behalf of their interests. Many of us have done this in our own 
offices, but it ought to be the policy of this House, and what is 
standing in the way is the Speaker and the majority leader who want to 
keep telling us about the procedure that they want to consider as 
opposed to the changes in the laws, and therefore, we have to raise 
this issue on the legislative appropriations bill, or now in the 
transportation bill, because we cannot get an audience, and we cannot 
get a hearing, and when we raise it where it might be vulnerable, we 
see the bill is taken from the schedule because there may be a vote in 
support of this position, and now we see that when it looks like gift 
ban is coming to a head, they want to sever it from the lobbying bill. 
The lobbying bill has been sitting at the desk. We know that another 
bill can be sent, it can be sent to conference, and our colleagues can 
finesse this, and the public will never get lobbying reform that they 
are clamoring for and that they are demanding from this institution.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot go through a legislative dance. Our leadership 
went through this legislative dance 2 years ago, and we ended up with 
no results. Our colleagues can go this legislative dance again, and 
those of us who are interested in lobby reform, gift reform, and 
election law reform, and even campaign finance reform, we can sit here 
and watch the dance, and nothing will happen, and the public will be 
deprived. We are entitled, as Members of this House, to better than 
that, and the public is entitled to better than that. What they are 
entitled to is the consideration of this legislation.
  I appreciate proxy reform, but it does no good if we do not allow 
proxy voting and the members who are sitting in the committee are there 
burping from the dinners that they have had with lobbyists and others 
as they vote on legislation that is before the committee. It is more 
important that we take care of the severing of those relationships, 
that we reform the lobbying practices around here and we get on with 
campaign finance reform. That is what we ought to do, that is what the 
public wants us to do, that is what they thought our colleagues were 
going to do when they voted for them in the last election, but that is 
not what has happened, and it has not happened because Speaker 
Gingrich, majority leader Armey, they continue to thwart the path of 
this legislation and consideration of it to the floor of the House.
  We ought to be able to deal with that and deal with it now, and the 
continued delay, when we have the rules up, it is not the right time; 
when we have the bill up, it is not the right time; when we have the 
conference report up, it is not the right time, it is not germane. That 
is the dance of legislation that has kept us away from these kinds of 
reforms for the last 20 years.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that the last 
20 years have been controlled by the gentleman's party. In the first 8 
months we have accomplished extraordinary change in this Congress. We 
are going to enact a bill this week that will balance the budget over 
the next 7 years, and then the very next day our majority leader is 
going to announce when we will take up this legislation. 

[[Page H10760]]

  I think we are making progress, Mr. Speaker. I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], our colleague.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. 
Waldholtz] for yielding this time to me.
  This has been such a fascinating discussion, and, as my colleagues 
know, it would be laughable if some of these people on the other side 
actually were not taking it seriously.
  I mean here is a party that literally controlled the House for 40 
years and never did any of these things, and now they are all upset 
because they have to wait a day or two. I mean it is a joke. These 
folks, as my colleagues know, for years made certain that none of this 
kind of thing ever got to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been more reform in the first 9 months of this 
Congress than we saw in the entire 20 years that I have served here, 
and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] who just spoke, he was 
here before I got here.
  So the fact is that we are seeing a number of reforms, and they are 
just not coming as fast as some of the other people on the other side 
would like them to come because they are now in a position, not having 
much to do, they do not have much in the way of policy that they are 
pursuing, they are losing issue after issue, and so they have now 
decided that everything they thought was wrong during the 40 years that 
was their control, they now try to bring over and put on the heads of 
the people who now control the body.
  I mean this is a joke, my colleagues, and I mean it is even kind of a 
crummy joke.
  Now let us get to the real issue of why they want to bring the 
legislative appropriations bill out here and debate it. The fact is 
what they are really against is the fact that the legislative 
appropriations bill actually cuts spending for the Congress. It is a 
real reform. We actually for the first time are reversing the trend of 
ever-increasing congressional budget and are actually reducing the 
amount of money that comes to the Congress. And guess what? When that 
went down to the President, the President vetoed that bill.
  Now here was a bill that cuts the amount of money going to the 
Congress substantially, and the President vetoed the bill. Now we have 
got folks defending the President's position. They want to have some 
reason to vote against this bill that cuts the Congress, and so the 
fact is what we are really hearing is from people who do not want to 
cut legislative spending. For 40 years they had that spending climbing. 
They had staffs around here that burst the seams of the place. We had 
office buildings full of staff.
  Mr. Speaker, we are now trying to cut the budget, and we are going to 
actually try and sell off an office building, and guess what? The folks 
who put all of that in place want to continue the spending, and so they 
are looking for every excuse possible to try to stop the legislative 
appropriations bill from being successfully completed.
  So now they have latched on to lobbying reform, or gift ban reform, 
or whatever it is they can come up with. They come to the floor with 
packages wrapped like Christmas presents and so on, every gimmick in 
the world. I am surprised they do not go out on the lawn and hold a 
hearing in the rain again on the issue because every possible gimmick 
they come up with to try to explain why they want the status quo, but 
in reality the reality of what is happening here on the floor today is 
we have got a bunch of people who do not want to cut congressional 
spending, they do not want the reforms, they do not want the 
congressional spending cut, and they will use every excuse.
  Now I realize that I am engaging in a nongermane debate here as well, 
and the only reason why I did it is because the other side has decided 
they are going to have nongermane debate on the floor, which does raise 
an interesting question. They claim that what they want to do is 
something about lobbies and gifts. What makes us think that they will 
obey the rules that we set up under those provisions any more than they 
obey the rules of the House by coming out here and having these 
nongermane discussions? The fact is that they are subject to a point of 
order, that what they have been discussing is totally beyond the rules 
of the House, it ought not be discussed out here today, and they are 
discussing having more rules that they say that they will obey those 
when they cannot obey even the simplest ones on the House floor.

                              {time}  1230

  Interesting subject matter, but it is a joke.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman agree that House rules 
were broken blatantly in conjunction with both the House Bank and Post 
Office scandals, and that that was during, of course, the Democratic 
Party's control of the House of Representatives?
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, yes, and they did 
everything possible to try to prevent us from bringing those matters to 
the House floor. They did everything they could to try to stop us from 
looking at that.
  Mr. RIGGS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, 
would the gentleman agree that the ongoing audit by one of the big six 
accounting firms of congressional finances, of the House of 
Representatives' books, has indicated many prima facie violations of 
House rules, and that that audit is an audit of the administration of 
the House of Representatives by the Democratic Party?
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the fact is that what it 
at least has indicated is that the books they kept were a mess and no 
responsible auditing firm could even tell us what really went on, 
because the books are almost undecipherable. They were an absolute 
scandal in the way they kept the finances of the House, and yes, it 
does appear that some people took advantage of that scandalous kind of 
bookkeeping.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], ranking member 
of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to get into this. I came 
over here to talk about the Transportation appropriation bill. However, 
since I do have some considerable experience with the history of reform 
in this place, I think I would like to put in some perspective what I 
have heard here on this issue.
  I was appointed by the Speaker in 1975 to chair the House Commission 
on Administrative Review, which was supposed to do a top-to-bottom 
reform of the House administrative structures, write a new code of 
ethics, and produce new rules on outside income. That was probably the 
most bloody and brutal experience I have ever had in this place. It 
cost me a lot of friends, because we did some very tough things that a 
lot of people did not like.
  I can recall at the time when John Rhodes, who was then the 
Republican minority leader, appointed his members of my commission. He 
had the courtesy to come to me and say ``Dave, this is going to be a 
tough job for you. Understand, I am appointing Bill Frenzel as the 
ranking Republican,'' but he said ``Just because you get his vote on 
these issues does not mean you will get any other Republican vote, 
because frankly, the political pressures in this place are going to 
take over, and whatever you are going to pass, you are going to have to 
pass on your own side of the aisle.'' That is very much what happened. 
We brought the administrative reforms to the floor of the House, 
reforms which, among other things, would have created the first 
professional administrator in the House. I am convinced we would never 
have had the banking problem or any of the other problems if we had had 
a professional administrator at that time.
  However, when the votes came, we were clobbered. We had significant 
defections on my side of the aisle, we had a majority voting for it, a 
big majority, but we had some losses on my side of the aisle, and we 
got not a single Republican vote to take up those reforms that we had 
worked so hard on. Through the years, some of them were later adopted, 
but they were adopted on a piecemeal basis because we had not been able 
to get them all done on that day. And in fact a few of them were 
actually put into the rules of the House this year by the new majority 

[[Page H10761]]
party. I congratulate them for doing that. It is about 20 years late 
that they came to that position, but better late than never. I will 
take help on those issues anywhere I can get it.

  However, I simply want to take this time to point out that we will 
probably hear, just as we did a long time ago on those reforms, we are 
going to hear a lot of hypocrisy, because there are going to be people 
who say that they really do want reform on gift ban and on lobby 
reform, but they are going to find every way procedurally to drag their 
feet, hoping in the end we never finish the job. That, frankly, is at 
least partially what I think is going on right now.
  I just want to warn Members, Mr. Speaker, that when we were involved 
in this fight over outside income, for instance, we were importuned by 
a lot of Members not to proceed because it would be unfair to the 
Members. And when we tried to put limits on outside income, for 
instance, I remember one Member of the House coming to me and saying 
``Dave, you don't understand. It isn't that my law practice takes 
anything away from my time. It is just that as I rise in seniority, the 
lobbies toss more business our way and I get a piece of the action.'' I 
said, ``Yes, I understand that is the deal. That is why we are trying 
to change it.'' And he understood, all of a sudden, that this was not a 
typographical error that we had in our bill, we were really trying to 
get something done with some teeth.
  I would simply say that there is, in my view, nothing more important 
that this institution can do to restore public confidence in it than to 
immediately deal with the issue of lobby reform and gift ban. I have 
had it up to here with having to see television stories about how 
Members will go off on these phony seminars, that are really golfing 
vacations disguised as seminars, run by some interest group that 
lobbies this place. That should not happen. That should not be allowed. 
That should be outlawed today, not a week from now, not a month from 
now, but today.
  We tried to do that last year. We passed it in this House. It was 
bottled up in the other body by the majority leader, and I would say 
the record on that is clear. I fully agree with the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] when 
they say that this matter ought to be disposed of now and immediately.
  I have been involved in these reform efforts for some 20 years. I 
know foot dragging when I see it, and I have seen an awful lot of it 
the last 3 months. I think the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
is right on when he describes where that foot dragging is coming from 
and why it has to change.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in ending, I would say we are on the Transportation 
bill, and we have no objections to the rule. I do want to thank the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for his helpful and I think useful 
review efforts to pass some reforms in this place, and salute him for 
his efforts. Nobody has been more deeply involved in trying to get the 
right kinds of things done around here than the gentleman from 
Wisconsin. I also would like to congratulate the gentlewoman from Utah 
[Mrs. Waldholtz] this year for her efforts, to wish her well, and to 
express the hope that in fact we will be able to vote soon on this 
particular matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts the gentleman from Wisconsin 
has made on congressional reform in the past. I appreciate the efforts 
this Congress has made in the last 10 months.
  Real progress was made in this new majority, Mr. Speaker. We have 
already limited the terms of committee chairmen, we have banned proxy 
voting, so Members of Congress need to attend their committee hearings, 
rather than simply allow someone else to exercise their authority for 
them. We cut committee staffs by one-third.
  We have had a house audit that has resulted, unfortunately, in the 
prior books of this House receiving the lowest rating possible from the 
accounting firm hired to perform that audit. We have changed the 
committee structure, and we intend to do more change of that committee 
structure in the future. And, for the first time, we passed the Shays 
Act, which will apply all of the laws regarding employment to Congress, 
so Congress will live by the same laws that we impose on everyone else 
throughout the country.
  These are real reforms, Mr. Speaker, that were enacted by this 
Congress, and I would suggest that those who believe in reform and want 
to see reform continue to pay attention to what is going to happen by 
the end of this week as we announce a schedule for moving forward on 
additional reforms that were not sufficiently supported in the past, 
but I believe will be passed by this Congress. I welcome and am 
encouraged by the attention and the interest from the other side of the 
aisle to join with those of us who have been working on this issue to 
get these reforms passed in this Congress.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would simply remind my colleagues that we 
are voting on the Transportation appropriations bill, that this is an 
important bill that has received support from both sides of the aisle. 
I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill so we can 
move forward in making some substantial investment in transportation 
infrastructure in our country.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and move 
the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 
241, I call up the conference report on 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXVIII, the conference 
report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 20, 1995, on page H10488.)


                             general leave

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the conference report to the bill, H.R. 2002, and that I may be 
permitted to include tabular and extraneous matter.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Coleman] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we present to the House the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 2002, the Fiscal Year 1996 Department of Transportation 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
  As Members know, the start of the fiscal year began 3 weeks ago, and 
the time to conclude the remaining appropriation bills wanes with each 
passing day. The Department of Transportation, like 11 other Government 
departments, is operating under the strict terms of the continuing 
resolution. This conference report will provide funding to further the 
important operation of transportation programs, including air traffic 
control, Coast Guard operations, and other critical transportation 
safety programs outside the continuing resolution.
  The Transportation bill always requires a delicate balancing act, and 
this year proved to be no different. The conferees have had to deal 
with competing demands for very limited funds. The conference agreement 
represents the very best effort of the conference committee to achieve 
a balanced and fair bill, and may I say to colleagues on both sides, a 
bipartisan bill. This bill has been totally and completely bipartisan. 
We did not make any decisions in the bill based on partisanship, and we 
hope and pray, Mr. Speaker, that we 

[[Page H10762]]
can continue that for many years to come.
  The conference report before the House today totals $12.5 billion in 
discretionary budget authority, and $11.4 billion in new outlays. The 
conference report is below the subcommittee's allocation for 
discretionary budget authority, and just at its allocation for outlays. 
The total budgetary resources provided, including new budget authority, 
limitation on obligations, and exempt obligations, is $13.1 billion in 
budget authority, and $37.3 billion in outlays.
  The agreement represents an increase of $1.5 billion in budget 
authority over last year. However, this figure is a bit misleading. If 
the totals are adjusted to exclude a rescission of $2.6 billion in 
contract authority that does not fall within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Appropriations, but was enacted by Congress this year, the 
conference report actually reduces spending by $1.1 billion below 
comparable fiscal year 1995 levels.
  I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to turn to some of the specific 
provisions of the conference report. First, the conference agreement 
drops the Senate provision which designates the National Highway 
System. I have been assured by the chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure that the conferees are making 
progress on that piece of legislation, and that States will soon be in 
receipt of some $5.4 billion in highway apportionments that are being 
held pending the enactment of the NHS. It is imperative that the NHS be 
designated very soon, as the withholding of $5.4 billion in NHS and 
interstate maintenance funds threatens hundreds of thousands of 
construction jobs and the Nation's infrastructure.
  After the worst year in aviation safety in decades, the conference 
agreement provides $4.7 billion for the operation of the Federal 
Aviation Administration and the Nation's air traffic control 
facilities, $110 million over last year's and slightly above the 
administration's request; let me say it again, above the 
administration's request.

                              {time}  1245

  In addition, $1.9 billion is provided for FAA facilities and 
equipment.
  The conference agreement includes $159.6 million above the 
President's request for equipment to enhance safety and capacity of the 
aviation system, restoring funds to the FAA for safety equipment, such 
as airport surface detection systems, wind sheer detection systems, 
improved weather detection and forecasting systems, and replacement for 
computers at Aurora, IL, and our other centers.
  In addition, the conference agreement also provides procurement and 
personnel reform for the FAA. These reforms would permit the FAA to 
operate much more efficiently and are fully supported by and included, 
in part, and at the request of the administration.
  Despite suggestions made, and I was somewhat disappointed to see 
this, by the National Air Traffic Controllers Union, the conference 
agreement does not force the disestablishment of any existing 
management labor agreement or lead to the dissolution of any union 
currently representing the FAA employees.
  Mr. Speaker, let me be clear about this and quote from the statement 
of managers, and I quote: ``The conferees do not intend that the 
personnel management reforms in this bill force the disestablishment of 
any existing management-labor agreement, or lead to the dissolution of 
any union currently representing FAA employees.''
  It is interesting that when the air traffic controllers came by to 
see us, they raised the issue of the 5 percent pay differential. The 
House went with the 5 percent pay differential, because we think it is 
important to support the air traffic controllers. The Senate did not. 
Yet now we hear not that the air traffic controllers union is grateful 
that this was done and they appreciate what the committee did. They now 
come in with something that they never raised with us during a meeting 
on the day of the conference when they spoke to us; they never even 
raised the issue. They never even raised the issue.
  These provisions, Mr. Speaker, would not become effective until April 
1, 1996, allowing for sufficient and adequate review by the appropriate 
authorizing committee. In the wake of the worst year in aviation safety 
and with equipment failing on a nearly daily basis, as we heard from 
the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] when she talked about 
the Denver Airport situation, FAA personnel procurement reforms are 
necessary. In fact, people would come and say we need to do something. 
If you just exempt the FAA from procurement and personnel regulations, 
we can do some of these things, and safety is so important. So we did 
this in order to bring about these safety changes, and we did it, I 
might say in fairness to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], in a 
bipartisan way.
  So I think when you come to the FAA, it is safety, safety, safety.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement, as I said, restores the 
reduction of $45 million for the 5 percent paid bonus for air traffic 
controllers. However, in order to accommodate the $88.6 million 
estimated for this program, the conferees were required to hold funding 
for the airport improvement program to the fiscal year 1995 level of 
$1.45 billion. The conference report drops controversial language 
relating to workers' compensation. The conference report also provides 
new budget authority and obligation limitations for the Federal Highway 
Administration totaling almost $20 billion.
  The bill includes $17.550 billion for the primary Federal-aid highway 
program, and an additional $2.3 billion for highway programs exempt 
from the limitation. In total, highway spending will increase nearly 
half a billion dollars over comparable fiscal year 1995 levels, to a 
level that is only half a billion below the fully authorized level of 
$20.4 billion.
  The conference report includes no special highway demonstration 
projects, returning some $350 million appropriated last year in Federal 
highway aid to the States. Doing so provides greater equity among the 
States and allows State Governors and departments of transportation to 
determine the appropriate expenditure of limited Federal highway 
assistance. Federal highway demonstration projects have gone the way of 
the past.
  Mr. Speaker, I think everyone agrees that this is the right thing to 
do. Every member in the House and in the Senate will now be treated 
fairly. It will not matter that you happen to be particularly powerful 
or famous or on a particular committee or having voted a certain way or 
having come from a certain region or having known somebody. Everybody 
now will be treated fairly, and I think that is something on which both 
the Republican party and the Democratic party can agree.

  Mr. Speaker, the agreement provides $2.053 billion for transit 
formula grants, the midpoint between the House and Senate proposed 
levels. Within this amount, $400 million is available for operating 
assistance, a reduction of $310 million from last year's level, and 
$100 million below the level requested by the President.
  Recognizing the limited ability of smaller and more rural transit 
providers to respond to reductions in Federal subsidies, the conference 
agreement provides that operating assistance to urbanized areas under 
200,000 not be cut more than 25 percent from last year's level.
  A total of $3.375 billion is provided for the Coast Guard. These 
funds are supplemented by an additional $300 million to be transferred 
to the Coast Guard from the Department of Defense, and I appreciate the 
DOD appropriations subcommittee doing that, because we would have been 
very hard pressed had we not had the good cooperation of Chairman Young 
and also Senator Stevens on the Senate side. In total, funds for the 
Coast Guard rise $108 million over fiscal year 1995 levels.
  Program increases, however, came at the expense of other programs, 
like Amtrak. Federal subsidies for Amtrak are curtailed by 20 percent, 
falling from $793 million in fiscal year 1995 to $635 million in fiscal 
year 1996. Other program reductions include: essential air service, 
down $10.8 million; the northeast corridor improvement program, down 
$85 million; transit operating assistance, down $310 million; transit 
research and development, down $6,8 million; pipeline activities, down 
$6 million.
  In total, the conference report kills 20 programs, including local 
rail 

[[Page H10763]]
freight assistance, the interstate transfer grants for transit, the 
right-of-way revolving fund, numerous Coast Guard and FAA activities, 
and supportive service of the Federal Highway Administration.
  Consistent with the will of Congress, the Interstate Commerce 
Commission is eliminated in fiscal year 1996 and is funded at $13.8 
million only for the first quarter of the fiscal year. An additional 
$8.4 million is provided for the successor to the ICC and once enacted 
into law by an authorization Administrative activities of the 
Department are also trimmed, including awards and bonuses, an 8 staff 
in the office of the Secretary and 10 political appointees department-
wide. The Department is required to consolidate or colocate its 
extensive field offices saving $25 million in this fiscal year.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement prohibits training that is 
offensive to Federal workers including the HIV-AIDS and diversity 
training which was so controversial.
  Mr. Speaker, additional details of the bill are addressed in the 
conference report and in a joint statement of the managers. H.R. 2002 
is a fair and balanced and bipartisan bill. It represents a compromise 
between the House and the Senate. It falls within the committee's 
602(b) allocation, and has the support of the administration.
  Mr. Speaker, I spoke to Secretary Pena on Friday, and he said that 
this bill would be signed, that the administrator was in agreement. In 
fact, all indications, as I said, from the White House as well as the 
Office of Management and Budget, I assume, are certain that the 
President will sign the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it does deserve the support, frankly, of all of the 
Members, and I urge its adoption swiftly.
  I want to thank all of the members of the committee on both sides of 
the aisle for their help and their cooperation. I also want to pay a 
tribute to all of the staff members, and identify them individually, 
for the good and the diligent work that they have done on both sides. 
It was a new team, a new operation, and they did a good job. I would 
like to acknowledge the following staff who worked on this bill: from 
the Majority Subcommittee staff: John Blazey; Rich Efford; Stephanie 
Gupta; Linda Muir; Deborah Frazier; and Ken Marx; from the Majority 
associate staff: Lori-Beth Feld Hua; Glenn LeMunyon; Connie Veillette; 
Jennifer Miller; Bill Deere; Ray Mock; Sean Murphy; Steve Carey; and 
Paul Cambon; from the Minority Subcommittee staff: Cheryl Smith; and 
from the Minority associate staff: Christy Cockburn; Kristen Hoeschler; 
Jim Jepsen; Barbara Zylinski-Mizrahi; and Paul Carver.
  I also want to thank Senator Hatifeld, personally somebody that I 
have always admired for many years. It was a privilege for me to have 
the opportunity to work with him. He was a complete gentleman, and we 
really never had any differences that were really the type that you 
sometimes think about. So I just want to thank Senator Hatfield and his 
staff and the Members of that side for their work.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert the following information for inclusion in the 
Record:

[[Page H10764]]
TH25OC95.000



[[Page H10765]]
TH25OC95.001



[[Page H10766]]
TH25OC95.002



[[Page H10767]]
TH25OC95.003



[[Page H10768]]
TH25OC95.004



[[Page H10769]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with Chairman Wolf, the 
gentleman from Virginia, in supporting the conference report on H.R. 
2002, the fiscal year 1996 Transportation and related agencies 
appropriations bill. The conferees faced a tremendous challenge, Mr. 
Speaker, in determining how to make critical investments in our 
Nation's transportation infrastructure under what were very tight 
budget constraints given us as a result of the actions of this Congress 
on the budget in our 602(b) allocations.
  We were $100 million in budget authority and $193 million in outlays 
below the original House 602(b) target for the bill. Accordingly, we 
did not do what many of us on our side of the aisle believed we should 
have done in many, many areas. Nonetheless, I believe that this bill 
has the support of the administration and that the President will 
indeed sign it.
  Mr. Speaker, the statement of managers I think amply documents the 
final product of the conferees on the transportation bill as was 
alluded to by Chairman Wolf.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would only make a few statements with 
respect to the issue of reorganization within the FAA. I understand 
that this was a critical issue, a matter of high priority not just of 
the Republican majority, but indeed Secretary Pena came forward very 
early on, prior indeed to this Congress even convening, telling us how 
it was that the administration intended to do the kinds of cuts, to 
make the kinds of streamlining that he felt the Department of 
Transportation should engage in in order to more effectively serve the 
American people.
  I would say in that regard, Mr. Chairman, that the Congress, in 
taking up overall the issue of having the FAA administrator, we require 
him in this legislation to develop new personnel and acquisition 
systems for the FAA. I am one, and I think I can speak for most of the 
Democrats on our side in saying that we support freeing the FAA from 
many problems that may indeed be undermining its ability to modernize 
the air traffic control system; and we want to be sure, as does the 
chairman, that we respond efficiently to the needs of the aviation 
industry and all airline passengers.
  Air traffic control system failures in Chicago, New York, Leesburg, 
Oakland and, just recently, Dallas highlight all too dramatically that 
the FAA's problems are real and do need immediate attention.
  The personnel reform section of this legislation, I want to correct 
only one statement made by the chairman and that was certainly a lot of 
us were raising the issue about where we were going to be with respect 
to air traffic controllers and FAA employees some weeks prior to the 
conference, so the chairman may recall that I had raised that issue 
with him. The conference agreement does charge the FAA Administrator 
with developing a new personnel system which would give the FAA greater 
flexibility in hiring and firing, determining promotions and pay, 
training and location of employees.
  It is true, Mr. Speaker, that I opposed in conference the committee 
majority decision to allow the FAA administrator to waive current law 
pertaining to labor management and employee relations' issues.

                              {time}  1300

  I think this is exactly the wrong time to be doing that. When we 
discuss the issue of being able to have a reorganization to put into 
jeopardy or to cause fear among employees about whether or not they 
will continue to have the ability to be represented by their current 
union management contract, whether or not we are going to rewrite labor 
law in this reorganization or not, I think is bad policy, particularly 
in an appropriation bill.
  We all know that we have authorizing committees in the House and the 
Senate to take testimony, to deal with issues such as these. My 
preference all along was that we not do that in this legislation.
  I think the right thing to do is to let those committees properly 
address the matter through a much more deliberative process than our 
appropriations could have given it had we even done so. We really did 
not take into account various and sundry, oftentimes very complicated, 
labor relations issues in any hearings. We just did not do that.
  I believe that in the transportation appropriations bill, with the 
personnel reform provisions not becoming effective until April 1, 1996, 
I am very hopeful that that will give time to the appropriate 
authorizing committees in the House and the Senate, ultimately a 
conference, and hopefully ultimately signing into law, moving to 
correct what I consider to be a problem in this bill. It is simply we 
did not waive that as one of the things we could have waived, and that 
is the reason I offered that amendment which failed, so that we could 
waive that and not do this in an appropriations bill.
  With that having been said, I will come back to some of the issues a 
bit later.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan], a member of the committee.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, admittedly at this time last year when we became the 
majority, or thereabouts when I knew that we were going to be in the 
majority, the first thing I asked for was a position to serve on this 
subcommittee. The reason I wanted to serve on this subcommittee is 
because historically it has been an opportunity to pick and choose, 
like from a Christmas tree, special projects for my own home district.
  I knew as soon as Bob Livingston told me that he had assigned me to 
this subcommittee that it was going to be clear sailing for Sonny 
Callahan because my highway projects, my demonstration projects, my 
airport projects, and everything, just like it has been for the last 20 
years, were going to be in that bill because I was sitting at the table 
bargaining.
  How surprised I was at the first meeting when the chairman called us 
together and said there are going to be no demonstration projects. I 
smiled somewhat, saying, yes, I know. But we still are going to get 
them, is what I thought in the back of my mind.
  But let me compliment the chairman. He stood his ground against some 
of the most powerful, some of the most persuasive people in the House 
and the Senate, and he did not budge one inch. This is responsible 
government.
  No, I did not get the special 14 projects that I wanted to get. We 
will get them sooner or later, but we will do it the responsible way, 
by giving the money to the rightful committee or the rightful agency 
under our jurisdiction, and we will do it in competition with a fair 
competition with all States. But we are doing this because of one man 
and certainly with the cooperation of the minority.
  I do not want to take anything away from them, because I did not hear 
that much argument to his philosophy. But for the first time in at 
least 20 years we have a responsible transportation bill that no one 
can come back next month and say, ``Look what you did. You gave these 
special projects without any meaningful purpose all of this money 
simply because of political pressure and compromising, trying to get a 
transportation appropriation bill through this House.''
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress owes a debt of gratitude to the chairman, 
and this country owes him a great debt of gratitude for the responsible 
way in which he has handled this bill.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member on the full Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. I 
simply want to make a few short remarks about it before we vote.
  I think the agreement reached by the conferees is, for the most part, 
a fair agreement that respects the priorities of the House and 
recognizes the conflicting pressures on us as we try to work in a very 
difficult budget situation.
  I am especially pleased, on a personal note, that my State has 
continued the 

[[Page H10770]]
progress which it has made the past few years in receiving a fair share 
of Federal highway funds. I appreciate the fact that this committee has 
been helpful in seeing to it that we do not make or that we do not 
experience any significant backsliding in that respect.
  I would note that there is not as much in this bill as we would like 
to have for highways or for airport investments, but given the fact 
that the 602(b) allocation, which is set by the Chair of the committee, 
provided less funding for that than we would have liked, the committee 
had no choice but to produce a bill within those limitations, and I 
think it has done a fairly reasonable job under those circumstances.
  I would note that there is a significant reduction in transit 
operating subsidies for communities around the country. Communities are 
not going to like that. I know some communities in my own district are 
going to be uncomfortable about it. I wish it could have been 
otherwise. But the fact is if the public is asking for budget cuts, 
they have to expect that they are going to get budget cuts, and this is 
one of the places where those cuts are going to bite.
  I hope that we can make some adjustments in the future, but, frankly, 
it is probably going to be tougher next year than it was this year.
  I would make just one observation with respect to the personnel 
reforms at the Federal Aviation Administration that have been mentioned 
by both the subcommittee chairman and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Coleman], the ranking member. I think all of us wanted to give the FAA 
additional ability to reorganize its shop, but I want to say that I 
think that a number of us have concerns about the lack of protections 
which we feel are in this bill for workers' rights during that 
reorganization process. The bill, in our view, does not preserve 
existing statutory requirements pertaining to labor-management and 
employee relations' issues, and that concerns us very much.
  I would simply say to the FAA that, in exercising the prerogatives 
which they will have under this legislation, I would urge the agency to 
proceed with utmost caution; and I would urge them to recognize basic 
elements of fairness as they deal with their employees. Because, if 
they do not, I think this Congress will and should in short order be 
right on their tail; and I think the FAA will wish that they had 
behaved in a sensitive manner.
  I would hope that, given the authority which they have been given by 
this committee, which I think is too broad, I would hope that they 
would exercise that authority with great discretion. We will be 
watching.
  Let me also say that I will hope the authorizers would take note of 
the lack of clarity in this bill on that issue, and I would hope that 
the authorizers would see to it in legislation that they develop that 
the agency does, in fact, meet decent standards of decency in dealing 
with the employees of that agency. I think Congress has a right to 
expect that and so do the workers at that agency.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Lightfoot], a member of the committee.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report.
  I would, first of all, like to commend the fine work of the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]; the chairman, and the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Coleman], the ranking minority member, in putting this package 
together. I think they have done an excellent job of developing and 
guiding this important funding bill through the entire process.
  I believe this is a conference report that we all can support. The 
House and Senate conferees have developed a transportation funding bill 
which funds our Nation's urgent infrastructure needs while meeting the 
tough first-year targets of our drive to balance the Federal budget.
  The aviation funding levels in this bill will allow us to move 
forward with high-priority safety projects such as the new air traffic 
control system which will finally take us out of the vacuum tube era.
  By rejecting a Senate proposal for new aviation taxes, we have taken 
the first important step toward rejecting the administration's 
misguided claim of a pending aviation funding shortage. Frankly, a 
close examination of future aviation funding needs does not 
automatically suggest a need for more aviation taxes, and the conferees 
recognized that fact. In fact, with the personnel and procurement 
reform in the bill, we may find that we have more than adequate money 
within the FAA.
  The personnel procurement reforms we have put in place will save 
taxpayers' money, at the same time accelerate the modernization of the 
FAA and drag them out of the 1950s into the 1990s.
  Contrary to what some might say, an FAA personnel reform plan will 
not disband the unions. In fact, with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf] as chairman of this committee and his strong support for Federal 
employees, that is a great stretch of the imagination in the first 
place. But what it will do is give the administrator the flexibility 
that the administration requested and needs to make FAA run in a more 
efficient way.
  We have also included language in the statement of managers 
recommending the FAA establish a high-level industry working group to 
assist in developing the FAA's personnel and procurement reform plans. 
This is the first step toward a permanent FAA management advisory 
committee.
  These FAA reform provisions are a start. I am pleased to say the 
cause of FAA reform will move further tomorrow when my friend, the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Aviation, will hold a markup of the Duncan-Lightfoot independent FAA 
bill.
  Again, in closing, let me commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] as well as the 
subcommittee's fine staff: John Blazey, Rich Efford, Stephanie Gupta, 
Lori-Beth Hua, Debra Frazier and Linda Muir. Without their help, we 
could not get any of this done. They have done a very fine job.
  I urge the adoption of this report.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Eshoo].
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of engaging the distinguished 
chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee in a brief 
colloquy regarding a critical bay area transportation project. The 
Tasman Corridor light rail project is an integral piece of the local 
rail agreement fashioned by our regional metropolitan planning 
organization, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. All of the 
bay area jurisdictions are a party to this agreement which represents 
the best in local planning and decisionmaking. When the California 
Supreme Court on September 28 invalidated the so-called Measure A, a 
half-cent sales tax dedicated to many important highway, commuter rail, 
and transit construction projects in Santa Clara County, the planned-
for local match for the Tasman project was assumed to be lost. Due to 
the perseverance of all involved, in the few short weeks since the 
ruling, the Tasman Corridor plan has been revised to reflect the new 
fiscal realities. It has been proposed that only the west extension to 
Mountain View be built at this time. This segment is compelling. The 
7.5-mile line is expected to cost $125 million less than the original 
project, with 50 percent of its funding derived from Federal Sec. 3 New 
Start funds. Of the $122 million in proposed new starts funding, some 
$33 million has already been appropriated and dedicated to the Tasman 
project by the MTC. The remainder of the funding will come from 
identified State, local and ISTEA flexible funding sources. This 
revised plan has the unanimous backing of the transit agency board, and 
I expect shortly will be approved by the MTC and later included in the 
California Transportation Commission's revised States Transportation 
Improvement Program.
  Mr. Speaker, particularly in view of these positive developments, and 
in deference to the local and regional planning process which has 
served us well, I would ask if the chairman agrees that if the revised 
Tasman project secures all requisite Federal, 

[[Page H10771]]
State, and regional approvals in a timely fashion, the $33 million in 
unobligated balances referenced in the conference report may be 
provided by the MTC for the commencement of construction on the Tasman 
West extension.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. ESHOO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, yes, that is my understanding.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for his 
understanding. I am very grateful for his thoughtful response.
  I would also like to acknowledge the gentleman's staff that has 
worked with us on this. I look forward to working with the gentleman in 
making certain that the plan for the Tasman West extension is 
financially sound, that it is accountable, that it is responsible and 
that it continues to enjoy the important broad-based support it has had 
in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] 
who would like to make some comments on this.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo] for taking the lead in this 
colloquy as well as my other Bay Area colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle for coming together in support of the Tasman light-rail project.
  I particularly would like to thank the chairman for reaffirming his 
commitment to local transit agencies and their authority over transit 
funding decisions.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard], a member of the committee.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 
1996 transportation funding conference bill. Chairman Frank Wolf 
deserves high praise for his hard work and diligence in structuring 
funding for our Nation's transportation infrastructure.
  This bill continues Congress' investment in the Nations 
infrastructure, providing $12.5 billion in discretionary budget 
authority for highways, transits systems, airports, and the Coast 
Guard. Also included in this bill, is a provision I wholeheartedly 
support. It denies funding for HIV/AIDS awareness training unless it 
specifically relates to the workplace rights of HIV-positive employees 
or to the medical ramifications of HIV/AIDS.
  In tight fiscal times such as these, Congress must evaluate all 
Federal spending and determine where we can get the most bang for the 
buck. We took a long hard look at the merits of every program in our 
bill.
  For example, the conference agreement includes no special highway 
demonstration projects, returning some $350 million in Federal highway 
aid to the States. Doing so provides greater equity among the States 
and allows State Governors and departments of transportation to 
determine the appropriate expenditure of limited Federal highway 
assistance.
  This bill builds America. We provide a network of transportation that 
moves America--its people, its products, its services--across town or 
across the Nation. This bill provides necessary funding to make our 
citizens mobile and allow our goods and services to get to market. It 
creates jobs, builds our Nation's infrastructure and ensures the safety 
of our traveling public.
  This is a good, solid bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the chairman, and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], and all the members of the 
conference committee for holding fast in the face of strong opposition 
from the other body on section 501 of the House version of the 
transportation appropriations conference report.
  This section, an amendment originally offered by myself and by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Royce], and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge], provides 
that no funds appropriated in this bill may be used to tear down and 
move a few hundred feet at a cost of $300 million a highway we just 
finished rebuilding in place for $90 million.
  The only purpose of this proposed boondoggle was to support a 
proposed luxury housing project being developed and to make the views 
of this housing project being developed in my district by Donald Trump 
and his business associates. This measure was supported unanimously by 
sides of the aisle and shows how this body can come together on issues 
to benefit the American tax payer. Again, I want to thank the leaders 
of the conference committee for their support in this matter.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would only attempt to, if I could, since I do not have any other 
requests for time of any Members that are here to simply add, if I 
might, in closing, my appreciation for the fine work and hard effort of 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the chairman, and the staff 
that they assembled, Mr. Speaker. All of us know that we cannot do 
these jobs without the hard work of a lot of very dedicated and fine 
men and women who help us put together these numbers so that they work, 
but also they negotiate many times for us with the agencies so we can 
understand some of the problems some of the cuts might cause.
  In addition, they are able to carry forward some of the arguments 
that we as Members literally in the committees and in conference do not 
always get to hear. I particularly want to thank and commend the 
persons who work hard on the staff.
  In addition, if I might, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be wrong for 
any of us as Members standing here today to talk about a transportation 
bill that has been nearly a year in the making to not also signal our 
appreciation to certainly our colleagues on the committee. I know a 
number have spoken from the other side. I only wanted to highlight the 
fact that I have been on my side of the aisle blessed with having 
wonderful cooperation, a lot of history, by the way, from Members who 
are actually more senior than I on this particular subcommittee.

  I wanted to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], and certainly one of the more 
important Members because of his status as the ranking member on the 
Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], and 
one of our newer Members but a Member who understands mass transit in 
its very intricate forms, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Foglietta], and all of their staffs for their advice and counsel as 
well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Pallone], who wanted to discuss some of the issues pertinent to the 
Coast Guard.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding time to me.
  I wanted to indicate support for the conference on two fronts. One is 
with regard to the office of pipeline safety.
  I think some of the Members know that almost 2 years ago now in my 
congressional district in New Jersey we had an explosion, a natural gas 
pipeline explosion in the area known as Durham Woods. As a consequence 
of that, I realized how significant funding levels for pipeline safety 
were, not only in terms of what has to be done in terms of 
investigation but, even more important, in terms of prevention.
  The amount of money that is provided in this conference bill for 
pipeline safety is better, significantly better than what I thought 
might result. I am very pleased with that because I know it will allow 
us to continue to do the kind of work that needs to be done to prevent 
accidents as the one that occurred in Edison, in my district.
  I also wanted to congratulate the conferees and the bill on the fact 
that, with regard to the small boat Coast Guard stations, there is 
language that would prohibit their closures. Those of us who fought 
very hard on the House floor, who felt that the small boat plan that 
the Coast Guard had put forward was not going to save a significant 

[[Page H10772]]
amount of money and would actually cost lives appreciate the fact that 
there is language in this bill now that would prohibit those small boat 
station closures.
  It was not something that was going to save money. So I think that it 
is consistent with the effort on the part of the committee to try to 
reduce expenditures, but allowing those stations to close would not 
have accomplished that fact. So I want to congratulate, thank again the 
gentleman from Texas as well as the chairman of the subcommittee for 
their efforts in the conference and urge support for the conference 
bill.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, in closing, if I might, Mr. Speaker, I have only one other 
speaker who may or may not be able to be here because of a conflict in 
meetings. So in any event, if I could, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan], my friend, earlier referred to the fact that the chairman 
stood strong against any particular highway demo projects.
  One of our colleagues in the conference from another State, however, 
did correctly point out that he was from a State that was not as 
populous as Virginia or Texas or California and that indeed sometimes 
it is necessary to provide the highway funding instead of doing airport 
improvement projects or instead of doing bus or transit new starts. 
Therefore, he felt it was perfectly legitimate that we indeed as 
members of our respective committees in the House and the Senate be 
able to provide funding for highways.
  As the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] knows, as the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] knows, we have not stopped anybody over on the 
authorizing committee from also authorizing and providing contract 
authority for specific highway demonstration projects. That has 
happened in the past under ISTEA. We are told it may happen in the 
future. I think we have got a ways to go. I think this is a good 
beginning.
  I know that the chairman recalled that in an actual vote on the House 
side, all of the Democrats on our side of the aisle did not oppose him. 
Indeed, to a person, we supported his effort to not--we think this is a 
good beginning--to not designate highway demo projects. Many of us 
think that perhaps we can move forward next year and do the same thing, 
when it comes to transit. Maybe we should do exactly the same thing 
when it comes to buses and other kinds of projects of that nature.
  We think it is a good beginning, Mr. Speaker. So, therefore, I want 
to finally only thank specifically two Members without whom I could not 
have operated my first term as ranking member of a Subcommittee on 
Appropriations, Ms. Cheryl Smith and Christy Coburn for their hard 
work. Cheryl has had to wear on our side many hats this session. She 
had to juggle her responsibilities of this subcommittee as well as to 
the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. She has done an exemplary 
job, and then Ms. Coburn also from my office staff who has worked with 
the committee on all of these issues.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Transportation appropriations conference report. It is a responsible 
bill--one that I believe all Members can support.
  I want to thank my chairman, Mr. Wolf, for having the patience over 
the last few weeks waiting to get this bill through conference and onto 
the floor. On his first trip through the process as chairman, he has 
done a masterful job of crafting this legislation that is before us 
today and I commend him on his efforts.
  It is important to note that there are many good things in the bill 
which keep us on message. This bill, while providing for a strong 
national infrastructure, also includes many policy statements that will 
benefit our Nation immediately and in the future. A good example must 
be the fact that there are no highway demonstration projects in this 
bill. What that means is there are no unforeseen priorities that the 
States have to take into consideration. What this means is that there 
is more money for States to accomplish their priorities in a timely 
manner. Having no highway demonstration projects in the bill gives the 
legislation integrity, and it gives the States confidence in the way we 
conduct business. This is what the American people and the State 
governments expect and this is what they deserve.
  In my home State of Texas, a donor State, highway spending will 
increase by $31 million over last year's level. Hopefully, this 
increase will assist the State in their construction of some important 
projects including several U.S. Highway 59 projects through my 
district. The conference agreement also approves continued funding for 
Houston metro's regional bus plan. Houston Metro is noted for having 
the lowest cost-per-new-rider index in the Nation. The continued 
funding for this program will assist in the efficient movement of 
people, goods, and services through the Houston area.
  With regards to airports, the conference elected to fund airport 
improvement programs at last year's level. In the face of both 
competing funding demands and ironclad budget constraints, I am pleased 
that were at least able to halt the downward funding spiral that 
airports have experienced over the last 3 years. However, in light of 
future air travel demands, I feel that it is important that Congress be 
ready with a plan that allows for the proper financing of our airport 
infrastructure in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, a bill all Members can support. I 
urge all Members to support this responsible measure before us today.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I, too, yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Without objection, 
the previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas 
and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 393, 
nays 29, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 735]

                               YEAS--393

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     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
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     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 (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     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
     Jefferson
     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
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan

[[Page H10773]]

     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 (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--29

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Borski
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Danner
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Hilliard
     Kaptur
     Martinez
     Menendez
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Slaughter
     Torres
     Traficant
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Abercrombie
     Chapman
     Fields (LA)
     Funderburk
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Weldon (PA)
     Wilson

                              {time}  1353

  Ms. KAPTUR, Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. BORSKI, 
and Mr. FOGLIETTA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas and Mr. CLAY changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________