[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.

                          ____________________