[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 140 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8737-H8740]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1045
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2169,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1998
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 263 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 263
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2169) making appropriations for the Department of
Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1998, 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. LaTourette). The gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Linder] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 263 waives all points of order against
the conference report and against its consideration. The rule also
provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, in brief, the transportation appropriations bill for
fiscal year 1998 provides vital transportation resources that will
ensure a strong infrastructure for the United States and contains
significant safety and security protections for American families
across the Nation.
The conferees have provided $9.07 billion for the Federal Aviation
Administration and assured the necessary funding to ensure aviation
safety and security, enhance the capacity of the aviation system,
improve weather forecasting systems, and provide automatic alerting
systems to prevent runway collisions. These are provisions that are
vital to provide the effective services and protection that the
American public deserves.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report also provides $333.5 million to
reduce fatalities on the Nation's roadways, $3.9 billion for the Coast
Guard, and $354.1 million for the Coast Guard's drug interdiction
program, $1.7 billion for the airport improvement program, and highway
spending that is consistent with levels assumed in the bipartisan
budget agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to compliment the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Wolf], the subcommittee chairman, for providing no special highway
[[Page H8738]]
demonstration projects and for cutting unnecessary administrative
expenses that will help ensure that America's transportation and safety
needs are met as we enter the 21st century.
In closing, I commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the ranking member, for their
productive work in crafting this conference report. I urge my
colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with general
debate and consideration of the merits of 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 congratulate the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]
and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] for their very, very hard
work on this bill. They and the conferees have come up with a very good
bill that funds Amtrak, the Coast Guard, and the Federal Aviation
Administration.
Mr. Speaker, we in the Northeast do not have many tornadoes, we do
not have many floods, not many of us need crop insurance or disaster
relief, but one thing we do need more than just about any other part of
the country is improvements to our infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, when a Member represents cities and towns that were
established in the 1630's, they realize that we need to do much more
than the rest of the country to be sure that our infrastructure is
sound. We need to shore up our roads, our bridges, our bus lines, our
highways, which are obviously some of the oldest in this country. And
we rely particularly heavily on passenger rail.
The Northeast corridor, which stretches from Boston to Washington, is
the most traveled rail route in the entire country. It carries over 100
million passengers a year. Unfortunately, the U.S. rail system is also
one of the most outdated in the world, and before the conferees fixed
this bill, Amtrak's operating costs were seriously cut to the point
that our national passenger rail system would probably have stopped
``dead in its tracks,'' so to speak.
But luckily for all Americans who use passenger rail, the conferees
reversed the decision to cut Amtrak and provided $344 million for
operating subsidies. The conferees also provided $250 million for the
Northeast corridor which will allow many, many much-needed
improvements.
This conference report, Mr. Speaker, does not stop at trains and
automobiles. It also provides $2.7 billion for the Coast Guard, which
is an increase over last year's funding.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this conference report provides over $9 billion
for the Federal Aviation Administration. This money will enable the FAA
to improve its safety measures, which should reduce the dangers of acts
of terrorism on American airplanes and in American airports.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is a good rule. The conference report is a
good conference report. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Granger].
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the
rule and to the underlying Transportation appropriations bill.
My opposition to this bill is reluctant because of my deep respect
and admiration for the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], our
committee chairman, and my regard for the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston], chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia runs his committee with the
utmost thoughtfulness and respect for every Member of this body. He
works hard to make sure that our Nation's roads, airplanes, and
infrastructure will meet our 21st century needs, and the gentleman
conducts himself personally and professionally with candor, class, and
character.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill because it contains
changes to the Wright amendment that are wrong on both policy and
process grounds.
The Wright amendment was enacted almost 20 years ago at the behest of
the cities of Fort Worth and Dallas in order to permit the safe
development and operation of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport
while still permitting limited flights from Dallas Love Field. This
legislation protects safety, safeguards taxpayers' investments in
Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, and ensures local control by respecting the
desires of the local communities.
The changes to the Wright amendment contained in this bill are bad
policy because they will injure Dallas/Fort Worth International
Airport, risk the hard-earned taxpayer dollars that have developed this
airport, and trample on the desires of the local communities. And as so
often happens, this bad policy was forced upon this House by the other
body in a complete disregard for regular order or process.
Mr. Speaker, this changes almost 20 years of aviation law and was
inserted without a single hearing or public forum, no discussion, no
debate, no consideration, just a decision, Mr. Speaker, a decision made
over the opposition of both Texas Senators, most of the local Members
of Congress, the mayors of Fort Worth and Dallas, the city councils of
Fort Worth and Dallas, the chambers of commerce of Fort Worth and
Dallas, and the North Texas Commission.
As a strong supporter of local control, as a fiscal conservative who
believes in the prudent use of taxpayers' dollars, and as a believer in
regular order, I must oppose this rule and this conference report.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. GRANGER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank the gentlewoman from
Texas for her effectiveness and for the commitment that she had on this
issue with regard to safety.
Mr. Speaker, had it not been for the efforts of the gentlewoman and
the effort of a couple of other Members, and I would like to put myself
in that category, there would not have been the provision with regard
to safety.
As the gentlewoman knows, this was going to be much broader. There
was initially going to be a complete repeal of the Wright amendment,
which I did not support. They also had other areas.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentlewoman and let the body
know, because a lot of the meetings were private, and let the
gentlewoman's constituents know and the country know that she is an
advocate and a champion and, I respect very much her vote against this
rule. And, Mr. Speaker, if I were the gentlewoman, I would vote against
this rule, too, and I would try to get as many people to vote against
the rule.
But, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her effectiveness and
her staying in to the very end in a very, very difficult process.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield time, I want to congratulate the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], who is now here, for a wonderful
job. He was not here when I spoke. But between the gentleman from
Virginia and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], they did an
outstanding job on this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Frost], a diligent, very hard-working member of the Committee on Rules
who has got a very, very germane point which Members should listen to.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in
opposition to this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the Committee on Rules met to consider
this rule, I offered an amendment to the rule which would have, in
essence, stricken section 337 from the conference report. I offered
this amendment to the rule since this section of the conference report
has an immediate and negative impact on my congressional district, as
well as the entire Dallas area.
Section 337 alters a longstanding agreement between the Federal
Government and the cities of Fort Worth and Dallas relating to air
service out of Dallas Love Field. However, the committee majority did
not see fit to agree to my amendment, and for that reason I will oppose
this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I do support the content of the conference report,
except for this provision in section 337, and I would like to take a
few minutes to explain the importance of this matter to the
[[Page H8739]]
Dallas area and as has previously been indicated by the gentlewoman
from Texas [Ms. Granger], who spoke just a moment ago.
Mr. Speaker, in the early 1960's, the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth
each wanted to have their own airport and the competition between the
cities resulted in intense disagreements and fragmented air service.
The old Civil Aeronautics Board, frustrated with this rivalry, forced
the cities to coordinate their efforts and resources. This coordination
resulted in the construction of a regional airport now known as Dallas/
Fort Worth International Airport, the second busiest airport in the
United States.
Before construction began, however, Dallas and Fort Worth executed
concurrent bond ordinances to finance the airport and agreed under
contract to phase out commercial traffic from each city's local airport
in order to protect both cities' substantial investment in the new
airport.
To further facilitate this agreement, in 1979 Congress enacted the
Love Field amendment, popularly known as the Wright amendment. The
Wright amendment expanded allowable service from Love Field by
permitting flights to Texas and its four contiguous States, Oklahoma,
Louisiana, Arkansas, and New Mexico. Exempted altogether from the
provisions of the Wright amendment were commuter airlines operating
aircraft with passenger capacity of 56 passengers or less.
The Wright amendment has served the communities of Dallas and Fort
Worth well in the 18 years it has been in place. It protected
neighborhoods surrounding Love Field, which is, after all, right in the
middle of the city, from the noise and other hazards of a full-fledged
commercial airport. And it has preserved relations between the two
cities on an issue which many consider to be the most important to the
economic development of the entire north Texas region.
This conference report does grave injustice to my district as well as
to the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth. The Chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation has seen fit to insert
language in the Senate-passed bill and this conference report, which
expands the area of service as well as the type of service allowed from
Dallas Love Field.
He has done this in spite of the fact that the city councils of the
affected cities, the mayors of the two cities, as well as myself, the
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Granger, the former mayor of Fort Worth,
and the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson, in whose
district Love Field lies, as well as the two Senators from Texas, are
opposed to this change in the Wright amendment.
Mr. Speaker, this is a local matter, and it is one that should be
settled locally, not by an appropriations conference report, and this
body should not allow itself to be bullied by one U.S. Senator who does
not represent the area affected.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the rejection of this rule and the rejection of
this conference report.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that what we just heard about
the Wright amendment ought to be discussed a little bit, because it has
been in place 18 years. The Wright amendment was put in place to
protect Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, which is now the
second busiest airport in the world.
Mr. Speaker, they are working on their eighth runway. Dallas/Forth
Worth Airport houses the largest airline in the United States, American
Airlines and it has a virtual monopoly on travel in and out of the
Dallas/Fort Worth area.
What this change to the Wright amendment does is allow traffic in and
out of Love Field, which adds a little competition to American
Airlines. Well, that lack of competition has had an effect on the
surrounding area. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation,
travelers going in and out of Dallas have had to spend, in 1992, an
additional $183 million in higher fares. Much of that is burdened by
Kansas travelers who are trying to get in and out of the Dallas/Fort
Worth area, just because of lack of competition.
Well, this provision allows that competition to happen. This is
America. This is free enterprise. This is the strength of our country.
{time} 1100
It is not bullying by one Senator. It is a whole nation that believes
we ought to have competition, who thinks this Wright amendment is a
virtual monopoly that has created a very high profit for one airline
and allow growth to the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.
So it is time for change. It is time for a little competition. This
minor change to the Wright amendment does not strike it down, although
that would have been my preference. Thanks to the hard work of a
freshman Congresswoman, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Granger] on the
House side, it was not completely stricken down. I still believe it
should be, but we are making minor changes to allow competition,
particularly in the Kansas area, which will allow Kansas to have lower
airfares, and to break the virtual monopoly that American Airlines has
held.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Georgia yielding
me this time. I rise in strong support of this fair and customary rule.
One critical component of our war on drugs is the Coast Guard drug
interdiction program. By providing full funding for this initiative in
this bill, we are sending a clear message to drug runners that drug
trafficking in our waters will not be tolerated and will be punished.
We are willing to commit the resources necessary to win the war on
drugs. I emphasize that, to win the war on drugs, not to settle for
stalemate or not to go backward, as we are in some areas now.
I am also pleased that the committee has once again held the line on
highway demonstration projects. These are projects that infuriate
Americans because it is not wise expenditure of their tax dollars. Once
again this year, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] has resisted
these projects, and he should be commended for sticking with what is
sometimes a difficult position in this Chamber.
I urge adoption of this noncontroversial rule, as well as the
underlying bill.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaTourette]. The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 413,
nays 4, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 507]
YEAS--413
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
[[Page H8740]]
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
NAYS--4
Barcia
Frost
Granger
Oberstar
NOT VOTING--16
Abercrombie
Barton
Brown (FL)
Chambliss
Dingell
Foglietta
Gonzalez
Hilliard
Lewis (KY)
Miller (CA)
Murtha
Oxley
Saxton
Schiff
Tanner
Young (AK)
{time} 1121
Mr. COBURN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________