[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10553-H10567]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1997

  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 522 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 522

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 3675) making appropriations for the Department of 
     Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The gentlewoman from Utah 
[Ms. Greene] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for 
purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 522 provides for consideration of the conference 
report for H.R. 3675. the fiscal year 1997 Transportation appropriation 
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.
  Waivers under the rule are in accordance with previous tradition on 
appropriations conference reports, and the rule was reported out of 
committee on a voice vote with no controversy or opposition.
  On the bill itself, I would like to commend the gentleman from 
Virginia, Chairman Wolf, and Ranking Member Coleman for putting 
together an excellent bill that funds this nation's most critical 
transportation needs.
  As my colleagues know, transportation plays a crucial role toward 
promoting our current and future economic growth and prosperity. This 
bill plays an important role in improving America's transportation 
infrastructure, thereby helping to secure our role in the global 
marketplace and, at the same time, improving our quality of life.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that this rule was unanimously 
reported out of committee without any controversy and that it is in 
keeping with tradition on conference reports for appropriations bill. I 
urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my Democratic and my Republican 
colleagues in supporting the rule for this Transportation 
appropriations conference report this morning.
  I would like to commend Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Coleman for 
all of their hard work in getting this bill to the floor today. This 
Transportation bill addresses some of the very real transportation 
issues facing our country today.
  It allocates $4.9 billion to the Federal Aviation Administration to 
help make airline travel in the United States even safer than it 
already is. Thanks to this bill, American airports will be able to hire 
500 new air traffic controllers and 367 new safety inspectors.
  In light of the recent tragedy in New York and the increasing danger 
of both international and domestic terrorism, I can not think of anyone 
who would object to our doing everything we can to make flying safer.
  This bill also allocates $35 million for boat safety and $2.3 billion 
for the operation of the Coast Guard. As a Massachusetts 
Representative, I can tell you that these funds will mean a great deal 
to the safety of our Nation's boaters, vacationers, and maritime 
workers.
  The conferees also allocated $115 million for the Northeast corridor 
improvement project. The Northeast corridor is the most traveled 
passenger rail route in the country stretching from Boston to 
Washington. It carries 100 million passengers each year.
  Although I still believe this country has a very long way to go in 
terms of improving its passenger rail system, these funds will 
certainly help.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this bill will improve our air travel, our water 
travel, and our rail travel.
  It is a strong package of investments in our infrastructure and as 
such it will prove to be a strong economic catalyst.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, 
not because the rule protects a good bill, but because there is a 
provision in this bill that does not belong in there. It is a provision 
that is certainly a poster child of why the line-item veto is long 
overdue.
  Section 351 of this legislation turns Congress into a domestic 
relations court, and a domestic relations court involving one very 
famous case in the District of Columbia involving Dr. Elizabeth Morgan 
and her former husband, Dr. Eric Foretich.
  By protecting section 351 against the point of order, the Committee 
on Rules has, in effect, legislated the outcome of a child custody case 
when the Congress does not have any of the facts, and that is 
outrageous and it should not be allowed to stand without someone 
standing up here to object to it.
  Let us look at the facts. Drs. Foretich and Morgan were involved in a 
very messy divorce case. That is not unusual. There are a lot of messy 
divorce cases that come up in the courts around our country. The 
divorce was granted.
  Dr. Morgan was given custody of her daughter. Dr. Foretich was given 
visitation rights. Dr. Morgan objected to the visitation rights and 
went to court, alleging that Dr. Foretich was involved in child 
molestation. The court did not sustain Dr. Morgan's assertions and 
continued Dr. Foretich's right to visit. Dr. Morgan then hid the child 
and prevented visitation, and was jailed for civil contempt.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] who has put the present 
provision in the bill, came to Congress, the 101st Congress, and asked 
us to pass a private bill for the relief of Dr. Morgan, to let her out 
of jail. When he testified before the subcommittee in the earlier bill, 
he said, ``The legislation written with input from academic and legal 
communities took great care to protect the ability of the court to 
enforce its rulings. While the jury trial provision in my legislation 
protects the individual from indefinite incarceration, the court can 
pursue additional remedies. Individuals cannot simply wait out the 
year-long period and expect to walk away from their obligation to obey 
the court.''
  Under Public Law 101-97, Dr. Elizabeth Morgan technically could still 
be charged with criminal contempt of court and brought before a jury. 
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wolf, said that some years ago. The 
legislation which he has introduced in this appropriation bill, without 
consideration by a subcommittee in either House, without a vote in 
either House, negates that provision.
  Second, this is a direct assault on the independence of the 
judiciary, and is bad public policy. Dr. Morgan has access to a 
judicial body. If she thinks the judicial body has erred, she can 
either appeal, or if she thinks that the judge is biased, there are 
provisions in the D.C. civil procedure court to get a new judge. 
Instead, she has come to Congress to legislate the outcome.
  Finally, Dr. Morgan and her daughter are in New Zealand. The New 
Zealand

[[Page H10554]]

courts have ruled that it is not in the best interests of the child to 
be brought back to the United States. The New Zealand court has 
possession of the child's passport. If this legislation is passed, our 
country will be in violation of the Hague Convention relative to child 
custody, and if the child is brought back to the United States without 
valid papers, both New Zealand and American law will be violated. Let 
us prevent this by voting down this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an op-ed piece by Paul Kolker 
in today's Washington Post.
  The material referred to is as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 18, 1996]

                 Congress as a Domestic-Relations Court

                          (By Peter R. Kolker)

       The legislative branch of the federal government is about 
     to become embroiled in a childcustody dispute. Congress would 
     take one case out of the hands of the judiciary and decide it 
     for itself. This unprecedented move has only two problems: It 
     is bad public policy, and it is clearly unconstitutional.
       As reported in The Post's Sept. 13 news story, this 
     imminent legislation--a replay of previous efforts by Rep. 
     Frank Wolf(R-Va)--would strip the District's court system of 
     jurisdiction in the bitterly fought dispute between Elizabeth 
     Morgan and Eric Foretich over the custody of 13-year-old 
     Hillary Foretich, (now Ellen Morgan), and it would prevent 
     the D.C. Superior Court from exercising its authority 
     throughout Ellen's minority. Similarly, it would also prevent 
     her father from seeking visitation through the courts, as is 
     the right of every parent.
       The Morgans have been in New Zealand since 1990 but now 
     want to return home--but like all other citizens, they would 
     be subject to the courts upon arrival. Morgan has asked 
     Congress to remove her case from the courts and deal with it 
     on the Hill. This would make her the only American parent 
     whose child-custody case was put beyond judicial reach. It 
     would not be the first time Congress did so for her.
       When Morgan refused to comply with a D.C. Superior Court 
     order in the custody battle, she was held in contempt of 
     court, and--in a standoff with the trial judge--she spent 
     more than two years locked up at the D.C. Jail. But with 
     well-connected friends, she secured the backing of Wolf, who 
     engineered special legislation to trump the court's ace and 
     thereby gain her freedom. No one else was affected by that 
     legislation. Once out of jail, she headed for New Zealand, 
     where the courts were more accommodating to her. Now, she 
     wishes to return home, but she needs something even more 
     extraordinary to keep the courts from treating her like 
     others, and she has enlisted the aid of Rep. Wolf again to 
     further her exemption from the process of the law.
       But this time, bill would affect someone else--Eric 
     Foretich--by effectively stripping him of his parental rights 
     and denying him access to the Superior Court, which is 
     allowed to everyone else whose child resides in the District.
       The Framers of the Constitution thought something like this 
     could happen. And they prohibited it. The Constitution 
     forbids ``Bills of Attainder''--laws punishing a specific 
     person or a very narrow class of individuals, constructed 
     to deprive them of the due-process protections available 
     to others.
       Not that this subject wasn't raised when Wolf's 
     subcommittee first took up the legislation. George Washington 
     law professor Jonathan Turley appeared at a hearing a year 
     ago and explained to the subcommittee the three hallmarks of 
     the prohibited Bill of Attainder: specificity, punishment and 
     elimination of judicial due process. Turley pointed to the 
     introduction to that early bill, which proudly states that it 
     applies only to the Morgan/Foretich case. Elimination of the 
     father's visitation rights certainly is a punishment (whether 
     deserved or not is another question), and it does so without 
     the protections found in court. Presto! A Bill of Attainder. 
     So why has minimal-government proponent Wolf persisted?
       The dramatic Morgan battle has had much media coverage, and 
     one can feel passionately about the story. Who knows the 
     truth of this case: whether or not Ellen, when a very young 
     child, was sexually abused by her father, as Morgan alleged 
     and Foretich denied? If he did, then serious restrictions on 
     visitation, perhaps even prohibitions, are in order.
       But what if he didn't? In our legal system, figuring out 
     what happened in a private dispute is for the courthouse, not 
     the Capitol. Our Constitution separates the judicial from the 
     legislative functions for good reason. A political forum is 
     hardly the place to take the testimony of witnesses in a 
     custody case, or to find facts or to fashion custody orders.
       Just consider how this remedy was crafted: as a last-minute 
     add-on to a transportation appropriations bill having nothing 
     to do with child custody. If Congress becomes the court of 
     appeals for the Morgan case, will the federal legislature and 
     Wolf be available to every District litigant who feels 
     wronged by the trial court? Or do only the well-connected get 
     to have their cases adjudicated on Capitol Hill?
       The judicial process was, and continues to be, fully 
     available to Ellen and both her parents. Whatever the 
     decision may have been years ago, the trial judge is bound to 
     consider the changed circumstances of the intervening years. 
     Ellen, now a teenager, certainly can articulate her views to 
     the judge, who undoubtedly would pay close attention. If 
     there were reason to think the original judge was biased, a 
     mechanism exists to replace him.

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Beilenson].
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and ranking member for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill and to the conference 
report on H.R. 3675, transportation appropriations for fiscal year 
1997, that it would make in order. Three of the bill's provisions that 
the rule protects are especially objectionable.
  First, the rule provides waivers for the legislative provision in 
H.R. 3675 that freezes fuel economy or CAFE standards for the second 
year in a row. That is an unwarranted protection of a controversial and 
major provision that should not be in an appropriations bill in the 
first place. This legislative rider weakens an important successful 
environmental effort that has served us well.
  The fuel economy standards freeze weakens our efforts to reduce 
pollution, to improve our Nation's energy security, and to lower the 
cost of gasoline for consumers. By reducing oil consumption, CAFE 
standards have been enormously successful in cutting pollution in this 
country. By preventing the emission of millions of tons of carcinogenic 
hydrocarbons into the air, the standards have improved air quality 
greatly, including those obviously in heavily populated cities like my 
own of Los Angeles.
  In addition, CAFE standards have proved to be successful in saving an 
estimated 3 million barrels of oil a day, thereby reducing U.S. 
dependence on imported oil. There is no doubt that without these 
standards we would be importing far more oil than we already do. We now 
import about 52 percent of all the oil we use in the United States, 
which contributes $60 billion annually to our trade deficit.

                              {time}  1245

  Of direct importance to consumers, CAFE standards result in savings 
when these consumers purchase gasoline. Because fuel economy standards 
doubled between 1975 and the late 1980's, a new car purchaser now saves 
an average of about $3,300 at the gas pump over the lifetime of his or 
her car. CAFE standards mean over $40 billion in consumer savings 
annually.
  By continuing this freeze, Congress is preventing full implementation 
of the law that was enacted back in 1975 that, as I said, has served us 
so well since.
  Specifically, the freeze is blocking improvements in the CAFE 
standards for light trucks. This means that our constituents who 
purchase the very popular minivans, sport utility vehicles, jeeps, and 
pickups are denied the benefits of existing fuel savings technologies.
  These vehicles have become the most prevalent example of the gas 
guzzlers we have sought to do away with. They now comprise over 40 
percent of the new vehicle market, expanding the demand for oil and of 
course increasing pollution.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, many of us regret that the bill makes reductions 
in funding for Amtrak. Compared to the House bill, the conference 
report is certainly preferable and the conferees are to be commended 
for restoring much of Amtrak's funding. Still, the legislation before 
us appropriates $70 million, or 11 percent less than current funding, 
and 11 percent less than requested. This is, Mr. Speaker, a bad 
transportation policy.
  Instead of reducing funds for Amtrak, we ought to be providing more 
to improve and expand rail service in the United States. We are now 
making an investment that is totally inadequate. Our rail system is 
nowhere near so cost effective or consumer oriented as it should be, 
but instead of providing the funds to overcome those deficiencies, the 
action we are taking today represents a big step backwards.
  An effective, efficient rail system is essential to the quality of 
life and the economic vitality of our Nation, and improving rail 
service should be a top priority. Instead, it has been sadly and badly 
neglected.
  Trains run infrequently; the most popular ones are overcrowded; and 
passengers have well-founded fears about

[[Page H10555]]

safety and the lack of good reliable service. But rather than trying to 
meet the demands of consumers and would-be customers by improving our 
rail program, we have relegated rail service to the bottom of our list 
of priorities, where it takes a back seat to the enormous amount of 
funding we continue to pour into our multibillion dollar highway 
system.

  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, and here I agree strongly with the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], those of us who believe that the 
procedural integrity of the House should be maintained are very 
troubled about the provision added in conference to strip the D.C. 
Superior Court of jurisdiction over the Elizabeth Morgan child custody 
case. This legislative rider is an egregious violation of several House 
rules, including the rule prohibiting legislation in an appropriations 
bill. It is certainly not germane to the bill and is definitely outside 
the scope of the conference's jurisdiction, since it was in neither the 
House nor the Senate version of the bill that was sent to conference.
  The provision itself, as we have heard, is very controversial. It is 
unconstitutional, since the Constitution forbids bills of attainder, or 
laws that punish a specific person or deprive that person of the due 
process protections available to everyone else and is bad public policy 
for Congress to make this move, which is clearly unprecedented. The 
legislative branch should not interject itself in a domestic family 
dispute that is in the hands of the Judiciary, where it belongs.
  Further, by agreeing to this provision, Congress would be putting 
itself in the position of passing legislation that encourages a 
violation of the Hague Convention, which both New Zealand, which has 
recently issued a ruling in this case, and the United States have 
signed.
  Mr. Speaker, we all agree that there are times when exemptions to 
House rules are necessary to keep the legislative process moving along. 
They should not be provided, however, for provisions that represent 
such egregious violations of those rules as appear in at least, I 
think, these 3 instances in this particular rule.
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time. I rise to support the position that we have heard 
articulated both by the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] as 
well as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner]. It is 
unfortunate when we allow matters which are not germane to a bill to 
become a part of the bill. It makes it doubly unfortunate when it is 
not only not germane, it is totally extraneous, and when it is in 
violation of the rules of the House that it be legislating in an 
appropriations bill.
  All of this would not shock my conscience given my years of service 
in the House of Representatives. But indeed it does shock my conscience 
that we put in this bill or allow to be put in this bill and for the 
rule to come to the floor making it not subject to a point of order, 
when it is a flagrant act of unconstitutional interposition of the 
legislative branch and an abuse of legislative power. There are very 
strong feelings and emotions about the merits of the Morgan-Foretich 
child custody case. I am not here to argue those merits. I am here 
simply to say that it is an abuse of the legislative process and shocks 
the conscience of this Member that this is being done, to deny to one 
party who is entitled to access to the courts that access as a narrow 
and specific legislative act. It is a bill of attainder, it is clearly 
and fragrantly unconstitutional, and it is an abuse of our processes 
that it be in this bill or in this conference report without an 
opportunity to raise the numerous points of objection which lie against 
it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, there are several provisions in this bill of particular 
concern to the area I represent in Colorado, and I wanted to speak to 
those very briefly.
  First of all since I am going to be tied up in a conference committee 
meeting during debate on the adoption of the conference report itself, 
I wanted to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf], the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Coleman] for their work on this bill and their efforts to 
accommodate many, many competing demands for limited funds.
  In particular on the positive side, the conference report anticipates 
substantial funding for further research into aviation-weather safety 
issues, much of which will be conducted by very skilled scientists and 
researchers in the area that I represent in Colorado, and I am grateful 
for the funding for those important public safety activities.
  The conference report also includes initial Federal funding toward 
the construction of a light rail system to handle the transportation 
needs of the people of metropolitan Denver under the authority of the 
Regional Transportation District.
  This is an absolutely critical need for this major metropolitan area. 
As with so many places, we cannot continue to handle our commuter 
traffic merely by building additional lanes of highways, and getting 
this assistance on a light rail system for this fast-growing area is 
very important. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] 
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] for their assistance there.
  The bill also includes some provisions having to do with Denver 
International Airport. I respect and have had many conversations with 
the gentleman from Virginia about his concerns about the airport and 
the future construction of a sixth runway at the airport. I believe 
that over time we will be able to have a successful dialog about the 
various concerns that, at this point, anyway, cause there to be some 
restrictions about that item in the bill. Among those concerns are a 
widespread feeling in the Denver area about noise violations emanating 
from airport operations. The FAA and the city and county of Denver have 
been working, I think, very hard on resolving those problems. We still 
have a way to go, and I think until those noise issues have been 
successfully addressed, it would probably be premature to worry about 
expansion of the airport with a sixth runway. But inevitably that will 
be needed. I hope that we can proceed in parallel with the resolution 
both of some very serious noise issues as well as the need ultimately 
for the sixth runway to be built so that the new Denver International 
Airport can reach its full potential, including handling trans-Pacific 
international flights for which that runway will be necessary.

  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to supporting adoption of the conference 
report. I again state my appreciation for the work of the gentleman 
from Virginia and the gentleman from Texas in dealing with the needs of 
the State of Colorado.
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert and read a letter at 
the outset from Congressman Clinger and Congressman Davis. It says:
  ``Dear Frank, this is to respectfully request that H.R. 1855,'' which 
is the bill with regard to Dr. Morgan, ``be added to legislation now 
pending in the conference committee appointed to consider the 
appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation. As you know, 
H.R. 1855 was the subject of a hearing in the District of Columbia 
Subcommittee of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee on August 
4, 1995. Subsequently, on February 1, 1996,'' and I will insert that 
letter in the Record, ``a written request was made to Majority Leader 
Richard K. Armey that the bill be discharged from the Committee. A copy 
of this letter is attached for your examination, along with a copy of 
the bill.
  ``Thank you for your consideration of this request.''
  Signed ``Bill Clinger, Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight,'' and ``Tom Davis, Chairman, District of Columbia 
Subcommittee.''
  Second, this Congress in the past had voted after Dr. Morgan was 
incarcerated in prison for over 2 years for not testifying in a case. 
Many people who are arrested in the District of Columbia for drug use 
and felonies get out faster than Dr. Morgan got out. And

[[Page H10556]]

this Congress has been on record overwhelmingly on this case.

  Third, I would also say that I think, and I will submit the full 
statement in the Record, Members should know Dr. Morgan is extremely 
sick, she has had her rectum removed, she has a colostomy which is on a 
bag on her side. Her father died several months ago and she was not 
able to attend her father's funeral. Her mother is 80-some years old. 
Her mother is living with her in New Zealand, taking care of Dr. Morgan 
and also taking care of Dr. Morgan's young daughter. Dr. Morgan's young 
daughter desperately wants to return to the United States. This court 
has had the case for 9 years. Nine years.
  Last, Dr. Morgan is very sick, and I would ask any Member of this 
body who has either been sick or has a husband or a wife or a son or a 
daughter, whether or not they would not have wanted them to have the 
very best health treatment they possibly could, and I know from this 
body, made up of good and decent people, the answer would be ``yes.'' 
And Dr. Morgan would like to be able to return, so she could have 
first-class health treatment.
  On January 25 of this year, at a press conference, attended by the 
gentleman from Virginia, Tom Davis, and the gentlewoman from Maryland, 
Connie Morella, I promised that if the legislation I cosponsored 
allowing Ellen to return to America had not been signed into law at 
this time, I would include it in the fiscal year 1997 Department of 
Transportation appropriations bill. I said, and I quote:

       I am here to tell you that it is my intention to search for 
     an appropriate vehicle for this legislation and I won't rest 
     until it is passed. I will even attach this legislation to 
     our fiscal year 1997 transportation appropriations bill as a 
     last resort.

  I did what I promised to do. The legislation passes no judgment on 
any of the parties involved. It does not take sides. It does not say 
anyone is right or anyone is wrong.
  I was not elected to Congress to harm people. I was elected to 
Congress to help people, and I have done what I believe is right. It is 
unconscionable to me that an American girl has been forced to live in 
exile away from her family and friends, where the courts have failed 
for 9 years to find a solution to this situation. Quite frankly, they 
have failed miserably.

  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the rule.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform 
           and Oversight,
                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 1996.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Cannon House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Frank: This is to respectfully request that H.R. 1855 
     be added to legislation now pending in the conference 
     committee appointed to consider the Appropriations Bill for 
     the Department of Transportation. As you know, H.R. 1855 was 
     the subject of a hearing in the District of Columbia 
     Subcommittee of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee 
     on August 4, 1995. Subsequently, on February 1, 1996 a 
     written request was made to Majority Leader Richard K. Armey 
     that the bill be discharged from the Committee. A copy of 
     this letter is attached for your examination, along with a 
     copy of the bill.
       Thank you for your consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
     William F. Clinger, Jr.,
       Chairman, Government Reform and Oversight Committee.
     Tom Davis,
       Chairman, District of Columbia Subcommittee.
                                                                    ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform 
           and Oversight,
                                 Washington, DC, February 1, 1996.
     Hon. Richard K. Armey,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: This letter is to request that H.R. 1855, 
     a bill to amend title 11, District of Columbia Code, to 
     restrict the authority of the Superior Court of the District 
     of Columbia over certain pending cases involving child 
     custody and visitation rights, be discharged from the 
     Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. I have 
     consulted with Ranking Minority Member Cardiss Collins and 
     she concurs with this request.
       Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                          William F. Clinger, Jr.,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____


                               H.R. 1855

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PENDING CHILD CUSTODY CASES 
                   IN SUPERIOR COURT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 9 of title 11, 
     District of Columbia Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:

     ``Sec. 11-925. Rules regarding certain pending child custody 
       cases

       ``(a) In any pending case involving custody over a minor 
     child or the visitation rights of a parent of a minor child 
     in the Superior Court which is described in subsection (b)--
       ``(1) at any time after the child attains 13 years of age, 
     the party to the case who is described in subsection (b)(1) 
     may not have custody over, or visitation rights with, the 
     child without the child's consent; and
       ``(2) if any person had actual or legal custody over the 
     child or offered safe refuge to the child while the case (or 
     other actions relating to the case) was pending, the court 
     may not deprive the person of custody or visitation rights 
     over the child or otherwise impose sanctions on the person on 
     the grounds that the person had such custody or offered such 
     refuge.
       ``(b) A case described in this subsection is a case in 
     which--
       ``(1) the child asserts that a party to the case has been 
     sexually abusive with the child;
       ``(2) the child has resided outside of the United States 
     for not less than 24 consecutive months;
       ``(3) any of the parties to the case has denied custody or 
     visitation to another party in violation of an order of the 
     court for not less than 24 consecutive months; and
       ``(4) any of the parties to the case has lived outside of 
     the District of Columbia during such period of denial of 
     custody or visitation.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter II of chapter 9 of title 11, D.C. Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new item:

``11-925. Rules regarding certain pending child custody cases.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to cases brought in the Superior Court of the District 
     of Columbia before, on, or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Continuation of provisions until termination.--The 
     provisions of section 11-925, District of Columbia Code (as 
     added by subsection (a)), shall apply to any case described 
     in paragraph (1) until the termination of the case.

  In August 1987, Dr. Elizabeth Morgan, a northern Virginia plastic 
surgeon, was jailed in Washington, DC, for contempt of court for 
failing to disclose the whereabouts of her daughter Ellen in a child 
custody case. Dr. Morgan was never charged with any crime yet 
languished in prison for over 2 years. Hardened criminals convicted of 
drug dealing and other crimes often spend less time in District of 
Columbia prisons. On September 23, 1989, President George Bush signed 
legislation I introduced prohibiting the District of Columbia courts 
from incarcerating anyone for more than 12 months in a child custody 
case unless they are charged with criminal contempt and given a jury 
trial to determine their innocence or guilt. Because of my legislation, 
Elizabeth Morgan was released.
  Dr. Morgan later joined Ellen who had been living in exile in New 
Zealand since 1987. On June 15, 1995, I cosponsored legislation, H.R. 
1855, permitting Ellen and Dr. Morgan to return home. At that time, 
Ellen's grandparents were very ill as was her mother. Since that time 
Ellen's grandfather has passed away and her grandmother's health is 
rapidly deteriorating. In addition, her mother has undergone emergency 
colectomy surgery, was forced to live with a bag resulting from an 
ileostomy, and suffers from a severe intestinal ulceration. Dr. Morgan 
needs the medical attention she can only receive here at home and Ellen 
longs to return to America.
  Because of the failure of the court system in the District of 
Columbia, Ellen was prohibited from attending her grandfather's funeral 
this year. I promised that I would do everything in my power to make 
sure that she could still live the life of an American teenager that 
she so desperately yearns for. On January 25 this year, at a press 
conference attended by Representatives Tom Davis and Connie Morella, I 
promised that if the legislation I cosponsored allowing Ellen to return 
to America had not been signed into law by this time, I would include 
it in the fiscal year 1997 Department of Transportation appropriations 
bill. I said, ``I am here to tell you that it is my intention to search 
for an appropriate vehicle for this legislation and won't rest until it 
is passed. I will even attach this legislation to our fiscal year 1997 
transportation appropriations bill as a last resort.'' That is what I 
have done and it should come as no surprise to anyone. Yesterday, the 
House and Senate conferees met to resolve the differences between the 
two Chambers' transportation spending bills and the

[[Page H10557]]

agreed-upon conference report includes a provision changing District of 
Columbia law permitting Ellen, now age 13, and Elizabeth to come home.
  The legislation passes no judgment on any of the parties involved. It 
does not take sides. And it does not say anyone is right or anyone is 
wrong. I was not elected to Congress to harm people. I was elected to 
Congress to help people and I have done what I think is right. It is 
unconscionable to me that an American girl has been forced to live in 
exile away from family and friends while the courts have failed for 9 
years to find a solution to this situation. And quite frankly, they 
have failed miserably.
  The legislation changes District of Columbia law, in this case only, 
by transferring visitation decisions from the court to Ellen and 
prohibits the court from enforcing any outstanding civil contempt order 
on Dr. Morgan resulting from this custody case.
  This is the right thing to do and it is the compassionate thing to 
do.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  At this time I would simply say that while there are some particular 
controversies that have been aired on the floor today, this is a good 
bill. It is a bill that provides for the transportation needs of every 
State in the Union, and it is a bill that should pass. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 522, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3675), making appropriations 
for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). Pursuant to House Resolution 
522, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Monday, September 16, 1996, at page H10387.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] will each be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].


                             general leave

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the conference report to accompany H.R. 3675 and that I may include 
tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am pleased to present to the House this morning a conference report 
accompanying the bill H.R. 3675, making appropriations for the 
Department of Transportation and related agencies ending September 30, 
1997. This conference report is the 6th of 13 appropriations bills in 
the House that need to be completed before the beginning of the fiscal 
year just 12 days from today.
  Let me first take a few minutes to summarize the conference report 
that we bring before you today. The bill appropriates $12 billion from 
the general fund of the treasury and $23.3 billion from the highway and 
aviation trust funds. The conference report is just $50 million over 
the House passed version of the bill which passed by an overwhelming 
vote of 403 to 2.
  A few of the high points include, Mr. Speaker, first, $18 billion for 
the Federal aid highway program, $450 million over the House level and 
$350 million over the Senate level. This level represents the highest 
obligation ceiling in the history of the program.
  Second, a total of $4.98 billion for the operation of the Federal 
Aviation Administration. This appropriation represents an increase of 5 
percent over the 1996 appropriation and provides funds for 500 new air 
traffic controllers, 367 new aviation safety inspectors and other 
regulatory oversight personnel, and an increase of 9 percent for field 
maintenance of air traffic control equipment.
  Third, $1.46 billion for the airport improvement program, an increase 
of over $110 million over the budget request.
  Fourth, $3.5 billion for the Coast Guard with an additional $300 
million provided in the defense bill. In total, resources for the 
operations of the Coast Guard, which does an outstanding job, will 
increase $41 million over the 1996 appropriation and $100 million over 
the President's request.
  Fifth, $300 million for the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, an increase of $20 million over the 1996 
appropriations.
  Sixth, a total of $565 million for Amtrak, an increase of $103 
million over the House-passed level. In addition, Amtrak will receive 
$195 million for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program, an 
increase of $80 million over the last year.
  Seventh, $2.15 billion for transit formula programs, an increase of 
nearly $100 million over the 1996 appropriation. In addition, the 
conference report includes $1.9 billion for transit discretionary 
programs, an increase of $235 million over the 1996 appropriation and 
$100 million over the budget request.
  Last, the conference report contains no highway demonstration 
projects, maintaining an important initiative this Congress began last 
year.
  This conference report places its greatest emphasis on our highest 
responsibility, and that is protecting and enhancing transportation 
safety, and it provides the resources to improve the Nation's 
infrastructure.
  The conference report was produced in full cooperation with the 
minority and all indications are that this bill is a bill the President 
will sign.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to take a minute to thank my friend, 
the ranking minority member of the committee, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Coleman].
  Mr. Coleman has announced his retirement from the House at the end of 
the session. He and I have worked closely together for the last 2 years 
and I am sorry to see him leave. It does not mean we have always 
agreed on each and every issue, but I think he has always had a good 
sense of humor and we have had a good relationship.

  I wish him Godspeed and would tell him that if he does not return to 
his home State of Texas, we would enjoy it very much if he made his new 
residence in the great State of Virginia. The great State of Virginia 
with the Skyline Drive, the Shenandoah Valley, the Appalachian Trail, 
Monticello, and Mount Vernon, and places like that. And he probably 
knows about those places because people from Virginia went to Texas but 
many are returning to live in the great State of Virginia. So if he 
makes this his place of residence, we clearly would welcome him, and I 
know he is a very objective man and we would encourage him to register 
to vote and participate in our politics here.
  But I do want to say, quite seriously, that I do want to commend Mr. 
Coleman and wish him well.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to pay tribute to the 
staff members. I wish to recognize and thank those staff members who 
supported the Members of the House in preparation and passage of the 
fiscal year 1997 Transportation and related agency appropriations bill, 
H.R. 3675: the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee's staff, John 
Blazey, Rich Efford, Stephanie Gupta, and Linda Muir. We could not have 
done the job without them.
  These are four of the finest, first-class individuals, and they have 
done an outstanding job. They know that I appreciate, and I am sure the 
minority appreciates the great work they have done.
  The appropriations staff, John Mikel, Dennis Kedzior, Elizabeth 
Morra, Ken Marx, of the majority staff; and Cheryl Smith, who has done 
an outstanding job representing the minority's interests. I appreciate 
and salute her.
  And also the associate staff of the committee, and I will have all 
their names in the Record. They have done

[[Page H10558]]

an outstanding job. We have done about as good a job as one can do, 
working in a bipartisan way to meet the needs of the Nation. And an 
indication of that is that the bill passed the House 403 to 2.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize and thank those other staff members 
who supported the Members of this House in the preparation and passage 
of the fiscal year 1997 Transportation and related agencies 
appropriations bill, H.R. 3675: The associate staff to the committee: 
Lori-Beth Feld Hua of my office, Monica Vegas Kladakis of Majority Whip 
DeLay's office, Connie Veillette of Mr. Regula's office, Steve Carey of 
Mr. Roger's office, Bill Deere of Mr. Lightfoot's office, Ray Mock and 
Eric Mondero of Mr. Packard's office, Todd Rich and Sean Murphy of Mr. 
Callahan's office, Sametta Klinetob of Mr. Dickey's office, Paul Cambon 
of Chairman Livingston's office, Michael Erlandson of Mr. Sabo's 
office, Jim Jepsen of Mr. Durbin's office, Laura McKinney of Mr. 
Coleman's office, Barbara Zylinski-Mizrahi of Mr. Foglietta's office, 
and Paul Carver of Mr. Obey's office.
  Mr. Speaker, I include additional information for the Record.

[[Page H10559]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18SE96.000



[[Page H10560]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18SE96.001



[[Page H10561]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18SE96.002



[[Page H10562]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18SE96.003



[[Page H10563]]

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am pleased to rise in support of the conference agreement on fiscal 
year 1997 transportation appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, they say in United States there are really only two 
kinds of folks, Texans and those who want to be Texans. So for those of 
us from Texas, while we certainly appreciate Virginia and the great 
State represented by the chairman of this particular subcommittee, we 
also believe that in working with the Virginians, we have been able to 
accomplish a great deal this year for the rest of the country. Indeed, 
the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia, Frank Wolf, showed 
itself to be invaluable once again this year.
  This measure is the last transportation appropriations bill that I 
will be able to manage for the minority on the House floor. It has been 
a pleasure and honor to work and act as the ranking minority member on 
the Subcommittee on Transportation appropriations for these last 2 
years, a subcommittee on which I have served 8 years of my tenure here 
in the Congress. The cooperation of the gentleman from Virginia, 
working not just with me but with other members of the subcommittee, is 
well known and well documented.
  I would also like to thank the minority members of that subcommittee, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking Democrat on the 
full committee, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Foglietta]. Their services on my behalf and on behalf of this 
transportation bill were also invaluable.
  Their insight on various transportation issues that they brought 
before our subcommittee made their advice both valuable and appreciated 
by all of us.
  I do also want to thank the staff, Mr. Blazey, Mr. Efford, Ms. Gupta, 
Ms. Muir of the majority staff; and certainly on the minority staff, 
Cheryl Smith. On my own personal staff Christy Cockburn and Laura 
McKinney worked very hard to see this bill through.
  This conference agreement is certainly one we can all be proud of. It 
does have strong bipartisan support. This conference report takes the 
best elements from the respective versions of the transportation 
appropriations bill as passed by the House and the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the conference 
agreement on the fiscal year 1997 Transportation appropriations bill. I 
ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, this measure is the last Transportation appropriations 
bill that I will manage for the minority on the House floor. It has 
been my pleasure and honor to be the acting ranking minority member on 
the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for the past 2 years, 
and to have been a member of the subcommittee for the past 8 years.
  I would like to thank the chairman, Mr. Wolf, for his cooperation in 
working with me and the other members of the subcommittee. I especially 
want to acknowledge the Democratic subcommittee members--Mr. Obey, Mr. 
Sabo, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Foglietta--for their fine work and insight on 
the various transportation issues that have come before our 
subcommittee. I have valued their advice and appreciated their 
collegiality.
  I also want to thank the staff--John Blazey, Rich Efford, Stephanie 
Gupta, Linda Muir of the majority staff, and Cheryl Smith of the 
minority staff, and Christy Cockburn, Laura McKinney of my staff--for 
their hard work on this bill.
  This conference agreement is one that we all can be proud of. It has 
strong bipartisan support. This conference report takes the best 
elements from the respective versions of the Transportation 
appropriations bill as passed by the House and the Senate.

  The conference agreement provides $12 billion in new budget 
authority, and $37.9 billion in total budgetary resources for important 
transportation investments. It is well within the 602(B) allocation 
allotted to this bill.
  I am pleased to note that the conference agreement provides 
significantly increased resources for the major transportation 
infrastructure programs:
  It provides $18 billion in new spending authority for the Federal 
Highway Program--$450 million more than in 1996.
  It provides $1.46 billion in new spending authority for the Airport 
Improvement Program--slightly more than in 1996.
  It provides $2.15 billion in new spending authority for transit 
formula grants--$100 million more than in 1996 for capital investments 
and $400 million for transit operating subsidies, the same amount as in 
1996.
  It provides $1.9 billion for discretionary grants to maintain and 
expand mass bus and transit transportation for citizens in both urban 
and rural communities across the country.
  It provides $150 million in new funding for state infrastructure 
banks, an important administration initiative to help States leverage 
private investment for highway and transit projects.
  Mr. Speaker, thousands of Americans use Amtrak and Commuter Rail 
Transportation to get to work and for leisure travel. We have seen in 
the past year, growing evidence that keeping Amtrak alive and well is 
vital not only in the Northeast cooridor, but throughout the country. I 
am pleased that the conference agreement provides $339 million for 
Amtrak infrastructure investments in the Northeast corridor and on 
other Amtrak routes throughout the country. These additional funds are 
a prerequisite for, but not a guarantee of, Amtrak's survival and 
future self-sufficiency. Clearly, unless additional funds for 
infrastructure improvements will have to be provided to Amtrak in the 
future if it is to become truly self-sufficient.
  Mr. Speaker, with the rash of tragic aviation accidents this year, we 
are all concerned about airline security and safety. The conference 
agreement provides a 5 percent increase in funding for FAA operations, 
including the Nation's air traffic control system. The $4.9 billion 
provided in the bill for FAA operations will enable the FAA to hire 500 
new air traffic controllers, and 367 new aviation safety and 
certification inspectors. The conference agreement also includes nearly 
$1 million in additional funds to enhance the FAA security office.
  This bill does not address the additional $198 million requested by 
the administration to increase security at our Nation's airports, as 
part of the administration's larger, $1.1 billion, package to fight 
terrorism. Nonetheless, I am hopeful that we can include these 
additional resources in the continuing resolution that must be adopted 
before we adjourn this year.
  In addition, this conference agreement does not include funding as 
requested by the administration for the Alameda Corridor Rail Project 
in California--a project that has strong support on both sides of the 
aisle. However, my understanding is that agreement has been reached to 
include this project in the continuing resolution when the CR is 
considered by the House.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report includes other worthy provisions, 
too numerous to mention now, but they are all detailed in the statement 
of managers on the conference report.
  In closing, let me say that this conference report is a reasonable 
compromise between the House and Senate bills, while still protecting 
the priorities of the House. I urge the adoption of the conference 
agreement and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the 
great State of Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of partisan activity 
on the floor of this House during the last several months. I know it 
must be very confusing to the people that are watching C-SPAN. They 
hear we are going to do things like cut Medicare and then they hear 
from someone else saying, no, we are not going to cut Medicare. They 
hear all of this partisan debate, and 90 percent of the debate that 
takes place on the floor of this House, especially at this time during 
the election process, is partisan.
  We are not trying to convince anyone that this is a good 
transportation bill or a bad transportation bill. We are talking about 
whether or not whatever they say is going to be interpreted by some of 
those Americans listening and making a decision on whether or not to 
vote for a Republican President or a Democratic President, or whether 
to have a Republican controlled House or a democratically controlled 
House.
  But behind the scenes, during all of this frivolous activity that 
takes place on the floor, there are people like the gentleman from 
Virginia, Frank Wolf, people like the gentleman from Texas, Ron 
Coleman, a Republican and a Democrat, who have a Republican staff and a 
Democratic staff who are doing

[[Page H10564]]

the work that they are supposed to be doing, doing the work that this 
body is supposed to be doing: Making certain that the Coast Guard is 
adequately funded to defend our shores; making certain that Amtrak gets 
a responsible amount of money and does a responsible job with that 
money that we appropriate for them; making sure that FAA has an 
adequate amount of money; to make sure that the people who travel on 
airplanes travel safely; making certain that our highway programs are 
adequately funded to ensure that we will maintain what we have today, 
and that is the best transportation system anyplace in the world.
  So while we are out here bickering over all these other things, these 
two guys and their staffs and their subcommittees have been behind the 
scenes doing their responsible work.
  There are some things in this bill that I disagree with. I am sorry 
that they chose not to ensure that the rail transportation station 
between Mobile and New Orleans was not funded. But they did the best 
they could do with the money that they have; ensuring, No. 1, that we 
are going to reduce the level of deficit spending; and ensuring, No. 2, 
that they have a fair and equitable report to bring to this committee. 
Both of these individuals and their staffs have put in literally 
hundreds of hours to bring us to this point today.
  There are no demonstration projects in this bill. When I joined this 
subcommittee, I thought, boy, this is going to be a great day. 
Everything that I can dream up, all I am going to have to do, because I 
am a member of this subcommittee, is bring it to these two guys and 
smile at them and say I need this demonstration project. But for the 
first time in a great number of decades, we are doing it and they are 
doing it responsibly.
  They are letting the States decide the priorities of the money that 
is available, and that is the way it should be. Politically, it might 
be to my advantage to go home and say, well, I got some special money 
put in this bill to build a new bridge. But from a responsible 
legislative point of view, Frank Wolf and Ron Coleman did it right.
  So I am here to commend them today and to encourage my colleagues to 
accept this report, because it is the best that we can do. It has 
nothing to do with whether we are a Democrat or a Republican or whether 
we are going to vote for Bob Dole or whether we are going to vote for 
Bill Clinton. This is what we are here to do; that is to fund these 
programs that are in this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
agreement on H.R. 3675. I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], our 
ranking member, and the Committee on Appropriations staff for their 
assistance in eliminating an environmental and safety hazard posed by 
more than 30 abandoned barges in my district.
  I would also like to thank city of Baytown Mayor Pete Alfaro, Harris 
County Commissioner Jim Fonteno, and Texas State Represtative Fred 
Bosse, along with the San Jacinto River Association and the Banana Bend 
Civic Association, for bringing this problem to my attention.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Coast Guard found in a 1995 study that these 
long-abandoned barges posed a potential threat to the health and public 
safety for the people who lived on or used the San Jacinto River in 
Texas. Furthermore, during the massive flooding that occurred in 
southeast Texas in 1994, one of these barges caught fire, causing the 
shutdown of I-10 in east Harris County and resulting in severe traffic 
problems for many days.
  Mr. Speaker this conference agreement provides funds for removing 
these abandoned barges from the San Jacinto River and the Houston Ship 
Channel. Last February, I asked the Coast Guard to develop a plan for 
the disposal of the barges under the authority of the Barge Removal 
Act. This Federal law, passed by Congress in 1992, grants power to the 
Coast Guard to remove any abandoned barge after attempts to identify 
the owners have been exhausted.
  Mr. Speaker, the Coast Guard has made every reasonable attempt to 
locate the barges' owners, and not it is time to stop the search and 
begin the removal process. I appreciate the hard work of both the 
chairman and the ranking member in working on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman]. It has been a real 
pleasure to work with him as a colleague, because it was about 10 years 
ago that I had the opportunity to work for him as a staff member on 
both his personal staff and on the committee staff, and I can tell my 
colleagues in the House, since this is the last bill that he will be 
working on as one of the managers, that he has done a great service for 
not only the people of the 16th District of Texas, but also the people 
of Texas and the people of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman for his service, and I 
appreciate both his assistance and the assistance of the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], I urge my colleagues to support this conference 
report.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Filner].
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I also want to 
thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] for all his work in his 
tenure here. He has not only developed the expertise and the technical 
knowledge, but he approaches the job with a sense of balance and a 
sense of humor that helps us all. I thank him for his friendship and 
mentoring while I have been a Member.
  Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the need that exists to invest in our 
transportation infrastructure. I, therefore, somewhat reluctantly rise 
today in opposition to this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, in every State, in every municipality, the need for 
funds to repair or build new highways, bridges, or public 
transportation systems far exceeds our ability to pay for these needed 
improvements. Nowhere is this need more pronounced than for our 
Nation's regional and short-line railroads. That is why I cannot 
understand why this conference committee removed the funds that the 
Senate provided for section 511, the Railroad Rehabilitation and 
Improvement Program.
  Mr. Speaker, this was not a lot of money. The Senate provided only $4 
million. But this appropriation would have had a beneficial effect that 
far outweighs this meager amount.
  This small appropriation would have guaranteed a minimum of $75 
million in private sector loans. Private sector loans. That is, for 
every dollar appropriated for section 511 loan guarantees, we would 
have received almost $20 in much-needed loan guarantees for our 
regional and short-line railroads.
  These are not grants; these are loan guarantees that will be repaid, 
and these loans do not have a history of default. In fact, this loan 
program has one of the highest repayment rates of any government loan 
program. It is not corporate welfare. There were no earmarks. There was 
no pork. Regional and short-line railroads would have had to 
demonstrate economic viability to qualify for these loan guarantees. 
And while there were no earmarks on appropriation, section 511 would 
have had a tremendously beneficial effect for the economy of southern 
California.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a project that enjoys widespread support, that 
will create tens of thousands of new jobs in San Diego and Imperial 
Counties, reestablishing what is called the San Diego and Arizona 
Eastern Railroad.
  The lack of a direct rail link to the east is hampering the real 
growth potential of the San Diego economy. Currently, San Diego's few 
commercial rail shipments must first make a several hundred mile 
detour. Ships which would otherwise use the Port of San Diego are 
therefore forced to go elsewhere in search of faster rail routes to 
inland markets. As a result, our communities lose out on business 
opportunities and our port suffers from serious underuse.
  Reestablishment of this San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railroad is one 
of the top priorities of everybody in San Diego and enjoys bipartisan 
support. The City of San Diego, the San Diego County Board of 
Supervisors, the San

[[Page H10565]]

Diego Association of Governments, the Port of San Diego, the Greater 
San Diego Chamber of Commerce, and the San Diego Economic Development 
Corporation all rank the reestablishment of this rail link as the 
highest priority for our area's economic development.
  Many of our Nation's regional and short-line railroads find it 
difficult to obtain private financing for rail line improvements due to 
short terms and high interest rates. Government assistance in the form 
of loan guarantees often becomes the only viable means to rehabilitate 
these vital links in our transportation infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that this section 511 program, because it is 
not a grant, because it is not even a loan, but a loan guarantee to 
leverage private sector loans, is precisely the type of public-private 
partnership this Congress ought to encourage.
  Last year the chairman of the subcommittee joined me and several of 
my colleagues in a colloquy in support of this program. In that 
colloquy the chairman stated:

       I concur that these loan guarantees have proven to be 
     reliable and can be a cost-effective and wise use of Federal 
     transportation dollars. * * * I can assure you that I am 
     sensitive to the needs of our regional and short-line rail 
     lines. I will certainly consider funding the 511 Loan 
     Guarantee Program if it is brought before a House-Senate 
     conference.

  The Senate came through. They appropriated funding for section 511 
loan guarantees, and I congratulate my colleagues in the other body for 
their vision.
  I just want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that unfortunately 
the conference committee as a whole did not demonstrate the same vision 
nor interest in revitalizing our regional and short-line railroads. For 
that reason, I must oppose the conference report.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I will not take as much time as the gentleman 
has yielded, but I simply want to take this time to urge support for 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is a reasonably good bill in terms of meeting 
the country's transportation needs. I think it has been worked out in a 
very reasonable fashion. I think we need to move on and pass the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] 
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] for their work on it. I am 
also happy with the allocation of the highway funds for a number of 
States, including my own.
  Let me also say that this will be the last time that the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Coleman] will be handling the bill for our side because 
of his ill-advised decision to retire. Let me simply say that I know 
the House will miss him. I certainly will miss him.
  Mr. Speaker, I think he has demonstrated in the years that he has 
served in this House that he cares very deeply about the people and the 
district he represents. I think he has also demonstrated a passionate 
commitment to the needs of people in this society who most need our 
help. I think he has always dealt with every Member of this House with 
absolute total honesty and frankness.
  Mr. Speaker, it takes about a second-and-a-half to figure out where 
Ron Coleman is coming from on an issue. That is the way it ought to be 
with human beings, especially in this profession. And I want to thank 
the gentleman for his service to the country, I want to thank him for 
the many contributions he has made to this institution, and I want to 
thank both the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Coleman] for the good job that they have done on this 
bill.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, let me just close by thanking all of my 
colleagues for the kind words this afternoon. I would only say that it 
has been a distinct honor and pleasure for me to have had the honor to 
serve with such fine Members and fine staff that we have produced here 
in these United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant support of the 
conference report on H.R. 3675, the Department of Transportation 
Appropriations Act, 1997.
  I am very disappointed that funding for the Alameda Corridor, a key 
southern California project with national significance, was not 
included in this conference report. While the project was supported by 
Members on both sides of the aisle and was included in both the House- 
and Senate-passed bills, political gamesmanship during conference led 
to the removal of this vital project from this legislation.
  The Alameda Corridor rail consolidation project is crucial to 
southern California and the Nation and was recently designated as a 
high-priority corridor by the Federal Government. The project will 
bolster our economy by facilitating the movement of goods through the 
Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to American and international 
consumers. By the year 2010, the Alameda Corridor is expected to create 
an estimated 700,000 new jobs locally and nearly 6 million nationwide.
  This project should have been included in the conference report under 
consideration today. I am working with my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to ensure that this project is funded this year.
  While I am disappointed that Alameda Corridor funding was removed 
from the conference report, I am pleased to see that the legislation 
provides nearly $10 million for another key southern California 
transportation project--the advanced technology transit bus. Also known 
as the Stealth bus because it is constructed with the same graphite 
composite material used on Stealth bombers, the ATTB demonstrates how 
defense and aerospace technologies can be put to use in cutting-edge 
advanced transportation applications.
  Additionally, I am glad that the conference report contains over $72 
million for funding for security at our Nation's airports and am 
especially pleased that the conferees added nearly $1 million in 
additional security funds to the administration's request. Recent air 
tragedies in Florida and off Long Island have graphically underscored 
the need to direct more Federal attention to increasing aviation 
security. Enhanced aviation security is particularly important to my 
congressional district, which is home to the world's third busiest 
airport, LAX. Congress, the administration, airport operators, and 
airlines must all work together to battle this growing threat to our 
national security.
  In conclusion Mr. Speaker, while this conference report is not 
perfect, I urge my colleagues to support it today.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
conference report on H.R. 3675, the Transportation appropriations for 
fiscal Year 1997. This report is an improvement on the already 
excellent legislation that passed this House. Included in these 
improvements are: Increased funding for Amtrak, $331 million for mass 
transit programs, and $450 million more for highways.
  This bill provides funds for substantial improvements of service and 
safety in all facets of transportation across our Nation.
  This bill improves safety in our skies by targeting $488 million for 
aviation regulation and safety certification activities which will 
allow the hiring of 500 additional air traffic controllers and 367 
additional aviation safety inspectors and other oversight personnel. It 
increases air service by providing $26 million to subsidize airline 
services to smaller communities.
  This bill also improves safety on our roads, especially by providing 
$18.0 billion from the highway trust fund for Federal-aid highway 
grants, which provides formula and other grants for the construction 
and repair of the Interstate Highway System and other primary and 
secondary roads and bridges.
  This is a good bill that represents the work that Congress can 
accomplish when we work together for the good of the American people. I 
salute the work of Chairman Wolf and the ranking member, my colleague 
from Texas, Mr. Coleman, and the rest of the committee for the hard 
work and bipartisanship that produced such a quality piece of 
legislation.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the conference report and 
keep the American transportation system the best in the world.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 
1997 Transportation appropriations conference report. This bill 
includes important report language impacting my district as well as the 
Chicago area as a whole.
  I am very concerned over the implementation of the Swift Rail Act 
which preempts State rights to ban the blowing of train whistles at 
highway rail grade crossing regardless of the safety records at the 
individual crossings. This act does nothing more than apply a 
Washington-knows-best mandate to a matter of State and local 
jurisdiction. The impact of this law as enacted could be catastrophic 
to the Chicago area. Many of the communities I represent have five or 
more highway rail grade crossings running through them, and if train 
whistles are mandated to blow at every crossing 24 hours a day, people 
will be blasted out of their homes. The law does offer supplementary 
safety alternatives to the train whistles but they consist of costly 
unfunded Federal mandates. According to the law, communities can

[[Page H10566]]

construct four quadrant gates to replace the need for train whistles. 
However, four quadrant gates are completely unaffordable to most 
communities and amount to an unfunded Federal mandate.
  Mr. Speaker, highway rail grade crossing safety is of paramount 
importance to me and I believe we can construct a solution to highway 
rail grade safety that is more palatable to communities than the Swift 
Rail Act. I am, therefore, pleased that Chairman Wolf supported the 
inclusion of the whistle ban language which instructs the Secretary of 
Transportation to consider the safety records of each individual 
highway-rail grade crossings and provide exceptions to the mandate 
where risk is limited. The language also asks the Secretary of 
Transportation to consider comprehensive local rail safety enforcement 
and public education programs as supplementary safety measures. 
Finally, the language specifies that where supplementary safety 
measures are deemed necessary, the particular characteristics of the 
crossing and the views of the affected community will be considered in 
determining the practicality of a proposed supplementary safety 
measure.
  The adoption of this language provides the Federal Railroad 
Administration with an outline of how to develop a notice of proposed 
rulemaking governing the implementation of the Swift Rail Act and I 
look forward to a continued dialog with the Department and Chairman 
Wolf on this issue.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1977 
transportation appropriations bill conference report.
  First and foremost, I want to thank Mr. Livingston, Mr. Wolf, Mr. 
Obey, and Mr. Coleman, and their staff for the high level of 
consultation and cooperation with the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee in developing this bill.
  Overall, the bill balances the need for a strong Federal role in 
transportation safety with the need to increase investment in our 
Nation's infrastructure. It increases funding for many important 
programs, including highway, transit, and aviation. In fact this bill 
exceeds the President's budget request for infrastructure funding.
  The obligation limitation for the Federal-Aid Highway Program is at 
an all time record of $18 billion. The overall funding level for 
highways is over $20 billion, more than $1 billion higher than the 
President's request.
  For the Transit Program, the overall level is also increased over the 
President's request--by almost $100 million. Federal transit funds help 
modernize, and maintain our transit systems. They also help build new 
systems. Good transit has an important role to play, especially in our 
large and congested cities. This bill will dispel the myth that this 
Congress is somehow hostile to transit and the transportation problems 
of our cities.
  For aviation, the bill funds an increase of $254 million for 
operations over the fiscal year 1996 level. This increase will fund 
important safety functions and initiatives. The bill also provides 
funds to continue the modernization for the air traffic control 
system--a critical safety issue. Once again, for airport grants, the 
bill provides more funding than the President's request for $110 
million for a total level of $1.46 billion. I believe, however, that 
there continue to be significant needs for additional Federal 
investment in our airports for both safety and capacity reasons.
  I am particularly pleased at the high level of funds for the critical 
infrastructure programs funded from the highway and aviation trust 
funds.
  Earlier this year, the House by an overwhelming margin passed a bill 
I sponsored--H.R. 842--to take these trust funds off-budget. This 
strong vote in support of transportation is a major reason that we have 
such high funding levels in this bill. While I applaud the 
appropriations committee's action in increasing trust fund 
expenditures, I remain committed to passage of the off-budget 
legislation to ensure that all trust fund moneys are spent for their 
dedicated purpose.
  For the Coast Guard the committee has ensured that there are 
sufficient funds to continue all its missions. We strongly support the 
Coast Guard's important role in Drug interdiction. This is a vital 
Coast Guard mission that affects every community across this country.
  There is report language accompanying this appropriations bill that 
encourages Amtrak, the Department of Transportation, and the States to 
explore using funds derived from the Congestion Mitigation and Air 
Quality Improvement [CMAQ] Program for intercity rail service. The CMAQ 
Program is part of the Federal-Aid Highway Program and is funded from 
the highway trust fund. Such a use of CMAQ funds is without statutory 
authority and is contrary to congressional intent.

  The congressional intent in enacting the CMAQ Program was to assist 
nonattainment areas that do not meet the national ambient air quality 
standards [NAAQS] by funding projects that contribute to improving air 
quality. In order to be eligible, a project must either be listed as 
eligible under section 108(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act or the EPA, in 
consultation with DOT, must publish information that it has determined 
that a project or program is likely to contribute to the attainment of 
the NAAQS. Intercity rail is not listed in section 108 (f)(1)(A) of the 
Clean Air Act, and, according to the DOT, the EPA has not made any 
findings that intercity rail is likely to contribute to meeting NAAQS. 
It is therefore very clear that intercity rail may not be funded under 
the CMAQ Program.
  Last year, the Secretary of Transportation wrote a letter to Members 
of Congress concerning an application by the State of Oregon to use 
CMAQ funding for certain Amtrak service. The letter stated that ``since 
the service operates substantially outside the Portland nonattainment 
area, it would not normally be eligible for CMAQ funding.'' I fully 
agree with that statement.
  That letter, however, goes on to state that ``given its importance to 
the area, however, I believe that it could be funded as an 
`experimental pilot' * * *'' I believe that this statement is in error. 
It is not within the Secretary's discretion to waive certain very 
specific statutory provisions because an area believes its Amtrak 
service is important.
  I certainly understand the concern of communities that are losing 
Amtrak service. Diverting funds from the highway trust fund and from 
projects that improve air quality, however, is not the answer. The 
reason Amtrak is being forced to close routes, such as the Texas Eagle, 
is that Amtrak is badly in need of reform, without which its ability to 
continue operating a national route system is very much in question. 
The freedom to make good business decisions, not more Government 
subsidies, offers Amtrak the best chance at long-term survival. The 
reforms contained in H.R. 1788, which was passed by the House by an 
overwhelming majority of 406 to 4 on November 30, 1995, would afford 
Amtrak the flexibility it needs to operate like a business and stretch 
scarce resources further.
  These reforms include modifications to Amtrak's extremely costly 
severance benefits under which employees who are laid off due to a 
route elimination are eligible for up to 6 years full pay and benefits. 
H.R. 1788 would also allow for contracting out of work; which, except 
for food service, Amtrak is currently statutorily prohibited from 
doing. The bill also reforms Amtrak's liability arrangements. Without 
liability reform, the costs that Amtrak pays freight railroads for the 
use of their track are likely to rise substantially, leading to further 
cutbacks in passenger service. These reforms and others contained in 
H.R. 1788 are the key to improving and sustaining intercity rail 
service.
  I wish to reiterate that the use of CMAQ funds for intercity rail 
service is not authorized under the law and language in the statement 
of managers in the transportation appropriations bill can not authorize 
such use of CMAQ funds.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support the 
conference report. I want to thank members of the subcommittee, 
particularly Mr. Wolf, for their work on behalf of the Westside light 
rail project in Oregon. Of course, no discussion of Westside light rail 
would be complete without thanking Senator Mark Hatfield for his 
relentless support of this project. He is a good friend and has served 
our State with honor and dignity. It is a dramatic understatement to 
say that he will be missed.
  The conference report today includes $138 million for the Westside-
Hillsboro project in Oregon. Westside light rail is one of my top 
priorities in Congress, and I'm proud that today marks the fourth year 
in a row that record funding has been provided to this vital project. 
Previously appropriated funds for Westside light rail have been fully 
obligated, and the project is on schedule for opening in 1998.
  As indicated by the bipartisan and diverse group which I helped 
organized to testify before the subcommittee earlier this year, light 
rail continues to enjoy strong support in the Portland area. In the 
1990's, Oregon taxpayers have voted to put their money into the South-
North and Westside projects by margins of 64 percent and 74 percent.
  I am particularly pleased that this conference report also includes 
an additional $40 million in authorization for the Westside project. 
Earlier this year, I testified in the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee along with Tri-Met's general manager, Tom Walsh, in support 
of making this necessary change. I want to thank both Mr. Wolf and Mr. 
Shuster for agreeing to this language.
  I'm also delighted that the conference report includes $6 million for 
the South-North light rail project. Light rail is integral to our 
region's future. As a region, we have developed a vision for liveable 
communities with less traffic and vibrant commerce which depends on 
regional and State land use decisions. The Portland metropolitan area's 
ability to handle our projected growth is predicated on the completion 
of light rail, and the South-North project is our region's next step 
toward making our vision a reality.

[[Page H10567]]

  I want to thank everyone in the delegation who has supported this 
project, and urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield 
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the 
conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The question is on the 
conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 395, 
nays 19, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 419]

                               YEAS--395

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

                                NAYS--19

     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Cooley
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Hancock
     Hoekstra
     Jacobs
     Klug
     Markey
     Neal
     Neumann
     Olver
     Royce
     Sanford
     Sensenbrenner
     Stockman
     Stump

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Brown (CA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Cubin
     de la Garza
     Durbin
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Heineman
     Herger
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Peterson (FL)
     Torkildsen

                              {time}  1351

  Messrs. NEAL of Massachusetts, BARRETT of Wisconsin, HOEKSTRA, and 
MARKEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. STEARNS changed his 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.

                          ____________________