[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 140 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8741-H8752]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2169, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 263, I call up
the conference report on 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, and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House.
[[Page H8742]]
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House
Resolution 263, the conference report is considered as having been
read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
October 7, 1997, at page H8587.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Wolf] and
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
General Leave
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2169, 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.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2169, the fiscal year 1998 Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, represents the
eighth conference report from the Committee on Appropriations. As my
colleagues are aware, only 3 legislative days remain to complete action
on the five remaining individual appropriation bills before October 23
when the continuing resolution expires.
The conference agreement represents a compromise between the House
and the Senate bills, and with any compromise there are elements in
this agreement that were difficult for the House and the Senate to
accept. But in the end, and all things considered, this conference
agreement is a good bill and one that I believe the President has
indicated he will sign, and Secretary Slater called to say that he
agreed with the bill. The agreement reflects this Congress's desire to
spend additional funding on the Nation's infrastructure and to protect
the safety of the traveling public.
In total, the conference agreement provides $12.4 billion in new
discretionary budget authority in fiscal year 1998. When accounting for
a rescission of contract authority enacted last year, funding contained
in this bill represents an increase of $240 million in discretionary
budget authority over the last year. In addition, trust fund
expenditures, namely, from the highway trust fund and the aviation and
airway trust, are up $3.5 billion, indicating this Congress's resolve
in approving the transportation infrastructure.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to highlight a number of items in the
conference. One, Federal-aid highways is funded at $21.5 billion, the
same as the House-passed level and $3.5 billion over last year.
Also, there are no highway demonstration projects in this bill. I
know this has created some heartburn. There have been people on both
sides of the aisle that quite frankly have been mad at me, good people,
decent people that just have not agreed. But we felt the fairest way
was to reallocate the money back to the States with a formula whereby
everyone in this body, whether they be Republican or Democrat or
wherever they may come from, would be treated fairly.
I would just say, if anybody on my side is listening in the
leadership, I would hope and I would pray that during this
consideration, as long as I have the privileged to serve as chairman of
this Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations,
that the leadership on both sides of the aisle, but particularly as a
Republican Member for my side, that they would support my efforts,
whether they completely like it or dislike it, whereby we will treat
everybody fair, and there will be no highway demonstration projects in
this legislation. Because what we would basically do, Mr. Speaker, is
we would be taking general fund money out which could go to the Coast
Guard and go to many other things, and I think that should be done in
another bill.
Second, $2.5 billion of the transit formula grants, the same level as
last year, or an increase of 16 percent. The conference agreement also
includes $2 billion for transit discretionary grants and $150 million
for transit operating assistance.
I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo]
and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for their support on this
effort. There was a motion to instruct the conferees on this. We have
been faithful to that instruction, and in many respects with the
support of both of the gentlemen, we have also been able to change the
definitions which will mean actually more for buses.
Mr. Speaker, $9.1 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration, an
increase of $785 million over last year, which includes $1.7 billion
for the airport improvement program. The administration only requested
$1 billion, and we are at $1.7 billion as a commitment with regard to
aviation.
I might add parenthetically that Secretary Slater called and
expressed some interest with regard to explosive device research. I
would tell the Secretary that with the increase of $1.7 billion, $700
million over what the administration actually requested, he does have
the authority, and I think both sides of this aisle have been very
faithful with regard to aviation safety, to take some of this money and
use it for explosive devices and what he hoped to be able to do.
Mr. Speaker, $3.9 billion for the Coast Guard, an increase of $440
million over the 1997 enacted level. The bill fully funds the Coast
Guard's drug interdiction activities at $354 million.
Mr. Speaker, $333 million for the highway safety activities of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and $543 million for
Amtrak, together with an additional $250 million for the Northeast
corridor improvement program.
There were a number of difficult issues before the conference and I
would like to briefly share with the Members of the House just a few of
them.
Certain Members of the Texas Delegation had expressed an objection to
the Senate language on the Wright amendment. Working with the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Granger] and the majority leader, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], in the conference, we attempted to
reach a compromise which was significantly less than what the Senate
wanted. I believe the conference accomplished that and, in the end, I
believe that the House obtained considerable concessions from the
Senate in the spirit of compromise.
And for those on both sides who were interested in the issue of
safety, there is very difficult, very tough language with regard to
safety. The conference report provides that the FAA administrator shall
take whatever, whatever, whatever actions are needed to protect the
public safety, even if it means restricting air traffic. So I would
direct Members' attention to that language printed in the conference
report on page 25, and the conference agreement does protect safety. I
also plan on meeting with the FAA administrator on this issue to make
sure, and there was a consensus agreement on both sides of the aisle
and also on the Senate side with regard to that.
Bus allocations. The conference agreement allocates some $400 million
in bus funds. While the Senate indicated that it preferred to allocate
bus funding on a case-by-case basis, the House insisted that a formula
approach be employed such that no member, Republican or Democrat, was
advantaged by his or her position on the committee, tenure in Congress,
or position of leadership. The House prevailed in conference and all
bus funding was apportioned by a rational, fair and defensible formula.
{time} 1200
I might say to Members, if anyone is listening back in their offices,
next year as we begin to get into this issue, I would urge Members to
meet with their Senators from their States, call them up, go over and
visit them, talk to them, and tell them that based on the formula it is
important not only for the great job that the House Members have done
with regard to representing their areas but also it is important that
the Senate do the same. I think that would be helpful to remove any
disagreements.
Third, funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System. The
conference report provides $300 million for the Appalachian Development
Highway System construction, the same level as provided by the Senate
bill. The House bill, I might state, contains
[[Page H8743]]
no appropriation. Agreeing to the $300 million was a concession to the
Senate in the spirit of compromise.
Funding for the ADHS benefits 13 States which comprise the
Appalachian Regional Commission. This money is provided from the
general fund, which I find somewhat disturbing, because that money
could be used for other things with regard to aviation safety. I
believe it would be more appropriate to expend the money from the
highway trust fund for these roads and bridges, which would be subject
to the annual limitation on obligations.
I would also note, if anyone from the administration or from the
Office of Management and Budget is listening, to crystallize a certain
issue and note that $300 million exceeds the President's request by
$100 million. With that $100 million, it could be put into the
explosive devices, or do some of those other things.
This was not something easy to swallow, but I personally, nor did
Members on our side, did not want to do anything to hold up the
Nation's entire transportation budget over this issue. In the end, all
things considered, it is a good bill. The President has indicated he
will sign it, Secretary Slater called us and said he agrees with it. I
urge my colleagues to support the conference agreement.
In closing, I want to acknowledge the assistance and support of the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the ranking member of the
subcommittee. We never had a difference. I do not believe there was
ever a partisan difference in the whole process. The bill passed 403 to
5, or something like that. I just want to thank the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] publicly and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] for their cooperation.
I also want to thank all the Republican members, who were very, very
helpful and worked together in a good team effort.
If I may also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the staff, John
Blazey, Rich Efford, Stephanie Gupta, Linda Muir, Cheryl Smith, and
also the associate staff, who have done a tremendous job. I do not want
murder their names but out of a courtesy to them I would like to
mention them: David Whitestone, Monica Vegas Kladakis, Connie
Veillette, Steve Carey, Eric Mondero, Todd Rich, Joe Cramer, Mark
Zelden, Paul Cambon, Marjorie Duske, Barbara Zylinski-Mizrahi, Albert
Jacquez, Nancy Alcalde, David Oliveira, Blake Blake Gable and Paul
Carver. I apologize if I did not say all those words appropriately, but
I hope for the Record's sake they will be there.
Last, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the conference
bill. I include for the Record the following information:
[[Page H8744]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09OC97.000
[[Page H8745]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09OC97.001
[[Page H8746]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09OC97.002
[[Page H8747]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09OC97.003
[[Page H8748]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind all
Members that remarks should be directed at the Chair or other Members
in the Chamber.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Sabo], the ranking member on the subcommittee, for yielding time to me.
I rise to say, Mr. Speaker, that I will support this conference
report. I know the work of both sides has been very hard. Obviously,
compromises have been made. But I rise to talk about something that is
not in the conference report that greatly concerns me.
Over the last 6 or 7 years, the Congress, prior to 1995, was about
the business of fixing up one of the roads it owns. It was the
Baltimore-Washington Parkway. The first 19 miles of that road are
Federal property. We have appropriated substantial sums to rehabilitate
that road, which was some 40 years of age and needed to be fixed or it
was not going to be usable. It is a major artery along the Atlantic
Coast and a major artery between two of America's great cities,
Washington and Baltimore.
It is, I might add, the direct route to Camden Yards, the home of the
Baltimore Orioles, which ought to give it added impetus. I would ask
the attention of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], who did not
hear my comments.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I apologize, I
did not.
Mr. HOYER. I know the gentleman did not. I want to repeat it, because
this is the major artery to get to Camden Yards, the home of the
Baltimore Orioles. I know the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Tom Davis,
is a big fan of the Orioles, and I hope the gentleman from Virginia,
Mr. Wolf, is as well.
Mr. WOLF. Yes, I am. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] is a
bigger fan.
Mr. HOYER. That is serious.
But on a transportation note, as the chairman and I have been
discussing, it is vital that we complete this project. We are now
$18\1/2\ million short of completion of rehabilitation and restoration
of the federally owned road.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the chairman, he knows my concern, the
concern I have had that we have not been able to fund this over the
last 3 years. We are now coming to the end of the funding stream. If we
do not get the balance, this project will be in abeyance. I would like
to ask, if the chairman could, to give me his comments on that, so we
could determine where we are.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I completely
agree with the gentleman. I hope we can do something. I would say there
is a discretionary set-aside of $440 million out of the Federal lands
program that the administration does have the ability to use. After
this is over, I will do a letter to Secretary Babbitt.
Second, I will also ask Senator Warner from my State to look at this.
I think there ought to be a category in the ISTEA bill to deal with the
BWI Parkway, and also the unmet needs in a lot of the national parks. I
think the gentleman is exactly right. I will attempt to do everything I
can to help. I completely agree with the gentleman.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for
his comments, and I would thank him for his help in seeing that we
could complete this project.
I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Sabo], the ranking member, who I know has been trying to help with this
as well. I look forward to working with both of them so we can see the
completion of this project, which is essentially 90 percent funded and
just needs this balance to be completed.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Wolf], the chairman of the subcommittee, for his good work. This
is a good bill. He has done an outstanding job chairing this
subcommittee. He has been fair and worked hard at it. It is a product
that we should pass by a huge margin today.
Let me also acknowledge all of the staff mentioned by the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], both majority and minority, who worked very
hard on this bill. It is an outstanding staff, and they do outstanding
work.
Let me particularly mention Cheryl Smith and the minority staff and
Marge Duske on my personal staff who have worked on this bill, along
with all the majority staff members and associate staff as doing
outstanding work. We deeply appreciate it.
Mr. Speaker, let me just highlight a couple of issues. When this bill
passed the House I expressed concern that we were underfunding the
operating account for Amtrak. The conference report that is back today
funds Amtrak at the level requested by the administration. I think that
was a good change from what the House passed and represents a
significant improvement in this bill.
Second, at the point this bill went to conference we moved to
instruct the conferees to stay with the House position of $200 million
for operating costs of transit agencies in this country. The House had
$200 million in its original bill. The conference report maintains $150
million, which is 75 percent of that amount, and, in addition, it has a
provision allowing transit agencies to use some of the capital money
for maintenance costs, which previously they have had to use operating
dollars for. So in essence, this bill complies with the instructions
given by the House at the point that we went to conference.
It is a good bill, and I urge Members to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time. I rise in opposition to the language in the bill drafted by the
Senate dealing with Dallas' Love Field. I will include a statement
expressing my concern about the safety implications of that position.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in a colloquy with
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that language in the
conference report pertaining to technical automation contains two
typographical errors. In the first line of the language it should read
``DDM 2800 series monitors'' rather than ``DDM 2300 monitor series,''
as is printed in the report.
The last line of this language should also read ``The conferees
direct the FAA to report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by December 15, 1997, explaining how the agency will
locate the resources necessary to continue monitor production during
fiscal year 1998.''
The report reads ``to continue to monitor production.'' The second
``to'' was added by the Government Printing Office and should be
omitted. I just want to make sure that this is clarified and that this
is the intent of the conferees.
I would ask, is this the chairman's understanding?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. That change was made
I think by an English major at GPO who felt a mistake had been made and
wanted to save the Congress an embarrassment, and they were thinking of
monitor not as the monitor, but to monitor. And the gentleman is
exactly right, although we do thank the GPO for the great job they do
to edit some of the things we say. The agreement does relate to the
2800 series of monitor and the second ``to'' was a printing error. I
agree with the gentleman.
Mr. PACKARD. I want to thank the gentleman, and I certainly support
the conference report.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
[[Page H8749]]
(Ms. FURSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report,
which supports the Westside-Hillsboro light rail project.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report
on H.R. 2169, Fiscal year 1998 Transportation Appropriations. I want to
thank Mr. Wolf, Mr. Sabo, and every member of the conference committee
for their hard work in crafting an excellent conference report.
I believe the conference report before the House is a good bill in
many respects, but particularly because it promotes livable
communities. For example, the conference report supports the Westside-
Hillsboro Light Rail Project, one of the Nation's leading examples of
sustainable development. The Westside Project, which receives the full
$63.4 million in this conference report, has already begun operating
and will be complete to downtown Hillsboro by September of 1998. Light
rail in the Portland area works in conjunction with Oregon's unique
land-use laws, and is critical to the future vitality and livability of
our region. Oregonians are anxious to reap the benefits of this public
investment: reduced congestion, improved air quality, sustainable
economic development, and maintaining the quality of life that we
treasure in the Pacific Northwest.
We can make a difference in our communities by planning for growth in
an effective and environmentally friendly fashion, and this conference
report helps achieve this goal. I want to thank Mr. Wolf and Mr. Sabo,
as well as appropriations staff members John Blazey and Cheryl Smith,
for their long-time support of the Westside Project.
We only have 1 year left of funding to complete the Westside Project,
Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Ford] for the purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Wolf], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the
Committee on Appropriations, for a colloquy regarding the Memphis
International Airport.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate report accompanying S. 1048, the Senate
version of the fiscal year 1998 Transportation appropriations bill,
included a recommendation that the FAA issue a letter of intent to the
Memphis International Airport for reconstruction and extension of
runway 18C/36C, a project vitally important to my region's capacity to
remain a force in tomorrow's competitive marketplace.
However, my understanding is that this recommendation was not
included in the conference report, based on erroneous information that
may have been conveyed to staff by the Department of Transportation.
Is that the gentleman's understanding?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. The gentleman is correct, Mr. Speaker. The conferees
believed that the FAA already had issued a letter of intent to the
Memphis International Airport when in fact it had not occurred. I agree
that the Memphis International Airport should have been included on the
list of airports for which the conferees encouraged the FAA to consider
signing letters of intent, and the FAA should treat the list of
airports identified in the statement of managers as if it included
Memphis International Airport. I regret and apologize for this
inadvertent error that was made.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership, and
certainly his willingness to address this problem, and for his
clarification that indeed Memphis International Airport should receive
the same consideration for a letter of intent as the six other airports
listed in the statement of managers on H.R. 2169.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, this is a great institution, and the
national media always focuses on the sensationalism of what is
happening in Washington. They want to talk about campaign reform, and
they want to talk about who had coffee with whom at the White House and
how much money was raised, or anything negative.
But meanwhile, we in Congress have a responsibility. One of the
greatest responsibilities we have, if not the chief responsibility, is
to distribute the tax dollars that the American people sends to us.
{time} 1215
While the spotlights are focusing on all the glamorous Members of the
Senate and the chairmen of committees about the sensationalism type of
media events, there are some in this House who are doing responsible
work.
During the last 6 or 7 months, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Wolf], chairman of this subcommittee, and the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. Sabo], the ranking Democrat, have been working with a great degree
of sensationalism, not publicized sensationalism but responsible,
dedicated service, trying to distribute the moneys that have been
allocated towards transportation in this country.
It is important. We are talking about highways. We are talking about
Amtrak. We are talking about buses. We are talking about the U.S. Coast
Guard. We are talking about a myriad of responsible activities that
have been taking place under the leadership of the gentleman from
Virginia and the gentleman from Minnesota.
So, Mr. Speaker, while I recognize that this is not a perfect bill,
because a perfect bill would include a little bit more for the Coast
Guard and a little bit more for the State of Alabama, even though
admittedly Alabama does pretty doggone well, I just rise and ask my
colleagues to reward these gentlemen for the work that they have done
for the last 6 or 7 months in bringing to this body, finally, a bill
that will provide the necessary moneys for the transportation needs of
this country during the next fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reward the gentleman from
Virginia and the gentleman from Minnesota by voting ``yes'' in favor of
this conference report.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from
Minnesota has 23 minutes remaining.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, Members come and go. Somebody who has served
here for many years now and did an outstanding job is the gentleman
from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], my friend. The gentleman flirted for a
while with the notion of running for an institution where speech is
unlimited and speeches go on forever. In the House, we are disciplined.
Mr. Speaker, being that the gentleman decided not to run for that
institution with endless speeches, and the fact that I have 23 minutes
left and I need to reserve 2 minutes for the ranking member of the full
committee, I yield 21 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
Skaggs], and we are going to test to see what kind of discipline the
gentleman has to not use it all.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I think that I appreciate the kindness of
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], yielding me most of his
remaining time, which I will not consume, but I thank the gentleman
very much. It has been a delight working with him on the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf],
the chairman of the subcommittee, for the predictably good work that
the gentleman and his members and staff have done in bringing a bill to
the floor that I intend to support.
I have a little bit of a good news and not so good news set of
comments I would like to make, which will not take long. But in
particular, Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize and express the thanks of
the people that I represent in Colorado for the inclusion of several
very important provisions in this bill:
Mr. Speaker, funding for the light rail southwest corridor being
constructed by the Regional Transportation District in the Greater
Denver Metropolitan area; funding for a very important mass transit
project along the Roaring Fork Valley in western Colorado. There is an
impossibly congested situation along the routes leading into Aspen,
which is renowned for its spectacular homes and perhaps its well-to-do,
but there are an awful lot of
[[Page H8750]]
working people that need to get to work in that community that will be
well served by this inventive effort to bring rail back to the Roaring
Fork Valley.
Bus money for Colorado; and, finally, a healthy amount for aviation
weather research, extremely important for the national aviation system
and an important provision in this funding bill.
Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points that I do want to raise a
question of concern about. For some reason, Mr. Speaker, they seem to
have to do with things emanating from the Denver International Airport,
a project that has enjoyed the special affection of the chairman of the
subcommittee over the years.
I wanted to say both thanks for the provision in section 323 that
permits some of the noise studies to move forward that are very
important in determining the advisability or not of the construction of
a sixth runway at DIA, as well as expressing some regret that there
remains a unique provision in the bill prohibiting funds for such
construction. But I know the gentleman from Virginia will keep an open
mind if it turns out that for safety, noise, and general good
management of the airport, it may be advised to proceed with such a
sixth runway.
The second point I just wanted to note was the very creative linkage
that seems to have been included in the report accompanying the
conference report between the southwest rail corridor moneys and the
possible acquisition by the city and county of Denver of rights-of-way
having to do with a rail line from downtown Denver out to the airport.
Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what to make of this report
language. It would seem to suggest that if Denver proceeds with right-
of-way acquisition, that somehow the light rail project run by an
entirely different legal and political entity could be put at risk. I
do not suppose that that is really what the committee intends here, but
the report language is somewhat fuzzy in this respect.
Obviously, what Denver may do with regard to the airport as one legal
entity, one political entity, really should not have much of an impact
on what an entirely separate political jurisdiction is doing in trying
to solve the needs of the Denver metropolitan area for a rail
alternative.
Again, I intend to support the conference report. I appreciate very
much the time yielded to me by the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed sitting on the Subcommittee
on Transportation and working with the gentleman from Minnesota as well
as the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk about one of the provisions in this
conference report and why I am such an active supporter of it, and that
provision deals with the merger of the Union Pacific and Southern
Pacific railroads. This merger has created a significant potential
safety and environmental problem which this legislation addresses.
Currently, there is a mitigation study being conducted by the Surface
Transportation Board, and this study is based on certain data and
criteria, that establish how many trains will be coming through Wichita
and what the environmental and safety impact, that it will have on the
community.
In this legislation we have report language that provides a safeguard
that will deal with future safety and environmental problems, and I
would like to quote just a part of it. It says, ``After the Board has
approved the final environmental measures for Wichita, if the Union
Pacific Corp. or any of its divisions or subsidiaries materially
changes or is unable to achieve the assumptions on which the Board
based its final environmental mitigation measures, then the Board
should reopen Finance Docket 32760 if requested by interested parties,
and prescribe additional mitigation properly reflecting these changes
if shown to be appropriate.''
This is the safeguard that I referred to, Mr. Speaker, and it allows
us to change this study or reconvene a second study if the
circumstances demand it so.
Mr. Speaker, the second provision that is in here that is significant
for the Fourth District of Kansas as well as the greater south central
United States is changes that we have in the Wright amendment. The
changes are going to significantly weaken the Wright amendment, which
is one of the few remaining monopolies that exist in air travel here in
America today.
This was a provision put in place by former Speaker Jim Wright about
18 years ago, and the purpose was to develop the Dallas/Fort Worth
International Airport. I have to tell my colleagues that this provision
was a success. That airport now is the second largest airport in the
world in terms of flight activity. It houses the largest American air
carrier, American Airlines. But that success has come at a high cost.
Mr. Speaker, in 1992, the U.S. Department of Transportation did a
study and they found that the Wright amendment costs air travelers each
year an additional $183 million per year because of the lack of
competition. Well, if we take 1992 dollars and escalate them to 1997
dollars, that would be closer to $250 million a year, a quarter of a
billion dollars that are paid by air travelers in the form of higher
airfares, which go directly in the profit line of those air carriers
which benefit from the Wright amendment.
The changes to the Wright amendment are in basically two areas. One,
we are changing the description of the 56-seat aircraft exemption. Now,
airlines can fly an aircraft out of Love Field that can hold 56
passengers and room for cargo. This change will open up some
opportunities for air carriers in the future.
Second, we are changing the definition of ``contiguous States'' to
add three States to it. One of those three States is the State of
Kansas. Now, Kansans can fly directly to Love Field. As a result of the
Wright amendment, my constituents have had limited travel between
Dallas and Wichita, and as a result we have lost some of our corporate
headquarters. Pizza Hut's world headquarters transferred to Dallas
because of the higher airline cost. Recently, Brite Voice transferred
because of higher airline costs.
So these changes in this conference report will be good for the
economy not only in south central Kansas, but the economy of the south
central United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I support the provisions in this transportation
conference report, and I would like to urge all of my colleagues to
vote for this conference report.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], ranking member of the full
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply note that I certainly do not
agree with everything in this bill. In fact, there are items that I
have fairly strong disagreement with. But it is a reasonable approach
to transportation problems in this country, and I think because of
that, it deserves our support.
I simply want to congratulate the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]
and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] for the job they did in
producing this bill. In politics, we often have two kinds of people: we
have the show horses and the workhorses. In these two gentlemen, I
think we have workhorses and the House is the better for it.
Mr. Speaker, I would also make the point that I think this
demonstrates that if these issues are left to the Committee on
Appropriations to try to work out in as bipartisan a manner as
possible, they can usually be worked out.
We have some other bills which at this point are stuck, even though
we are well into the new fiscal year, because other outside
considerations have intruded and, as a result, the committee is not
being allowed to work out its differences the way it would normally
work them out.
If left to their own devices, I think on all four of those remaining
bills the Committee on Appropriations could reach an agreement that
could satisfy the country in a week. But even though at this point we
have not been fortunate enough to have those bills unleashed, this one
is, and it is in no small measure due to the fact that we
[[Page H8751]]
have persons with the attitude represented by the gentleman from
Virginia and the gentleman from Minnesota, and I for one appreciate
their working style, and I thank them on behalf of our Members for the
work they have done on behalf of the House.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] for his kind comments.
I have no further requests for time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] for his comments, and I thank all the Members on both sides and
urge an ``aye'' vote for the conference report.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to raise one
aspect of the Transportation appropriations bill that gives me concern.
I believe modifying the Wright amendment without a careful and serious
debate about the safety issues involved is premature. At the outset, I
want to make it clear that I am not against competition in the airline
industry. In fact, I have worked many years as chairman of the Aviation
Subcommittee and now as the ranking Democratic member on the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to ensure that competition
is alive and well and that consumers are protected. My concerns focus
entirely on the safety of permitting greatly expanded traffic growth at
Love Field in Dallas, which might complicate the air traffic patterns
in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
Let me begin by saying that the Wright amendment was a carefully
crafted compromise which resolved a heated and long standing dispute
between the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth. Today, Dallas Fort Worth
is a vibrant international airport and Love Field is very successful
and the home of Southwest Airlines. I will not go into the history of
the Wright amendment except to say that it has served the Nation well.
Dallas Fort Worth and Love Field airports are only 8 miles apart.
Only 2 nautical miles separate the approach patterns between DFW and
Love Field. The runways at Love Field point into Dallas Fort Worth's
most heavily used arrival routes. Over the years, FAA has developed air
traffic control procedures to prevent planes from coming too close to
one another. The approach procedures into Love Field are more
circuitous in order to facilitate a more direct approach into Dallas
Fort Worth. These procedures work well with the Wright amendment in
place. Safety is assured. Congestion is controlled.
With the modification of the Wright amendment, I am concerned about
the potential safety impacts from the anticipated growth at two
airports in such close proximity. The Federal Aviation Administration's
data shows that Dallas Forth Worth totaled almost 900,000 operations in
1995, making it the second most active U.S. airport. Analysts at the
Federal Aviation Administration Believe that this will increase to over
1.2 million operations per year by 2010, an increase of almost 40
percent. Love Field, on the other hand, experienced about 208,700
operations in 1995 and is expected to grow by about 5.9 percent by
2010. But that was before any thought was given to modifying the Wright
amendment. If airlines move into Love Field, the airport will quickly
reach capacity and significant delays may become commonplace. The
safety impacts of these developments in such confined airspace,
particularly in poor weather, are uncertain at best.
In September 1991, the House Aviation Subcommittee held exhaustive
hearings on this issue and explored the competitive and safety impacts
of repealing or modifying the Wright amendment. At that time, we heard
from experts in the aviation community, local and State leaders, and
many others. The subcommittee explored the safety and competitive
issues in great depth. Najeeb Halaby, a former FAA Administrator
cautioned against repealing the Wright amendment on safety grounds and
told us that the margin of safety would be compromised. Again, we need
to examine the facts, analyze the safety issues, an get a full
understanding of all the complexities of traffic flow and air traffic
control before such a major change is even considered.
Mr. Speaker, let me say in closing that the burden now falls on the
Federal Aviation Administration to make sure that both Dallas Forth and
Love Field can operate safely and can handle growth. The conferees to
this bill expressed similar concerns and have directed the Federal
Aviation Administration to report on the additional equipment or air
traffic control support necessary to enhance traffic flow, airspace
management, and safety in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area.
Also, FAA is to review the implications of increased traffic levels on
the area and recommend the appropriate steps. We should have had the
answers to these questions before we voted on this provision.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, today I am voting against the conference
agreement on Transportation Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1998.
Although the House approved a level of $15 billion for my State of
Michigan for the coming fiscal year, a questionable deal was cut in the
conference committee. Inexplicably the levels in those two bills were
cut to just $7.5 million. This is a perfect example of the need for
funding equity in our transportation programs, and a reworking of the
formulas for transit which have continuously resulted in Michigan's
citizens getting the short end of the transit funding stick.
Transportation funding is one of the most critical commitments that
our government makes each year. Therefore, I support the base bill.
However, I cannot continue to stand by, Mr. Speaker, while the transit
customers of Michigan are given no guarantee of a return of Michigan's
gas tax dollars.
Therefore, today I voted with the majority of the Michigan delegation
against this conference agreement, despite the fact that it included a
provision that I strongly support--a provision that bars Members of
Congress from exercising the option of switching from the Civil Service
Retirement System to the Federal Employees Retirement System.
At the very least, Mr. Speaker, we must find some way to assure that
each State receives a minimum allocation from the Transit account of
our highway trust fund. Today, Mr. Speaker, I vote against this bill to
protest its perpetuation.
Mr. KILPATRICK, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
conference report accompanying H.R. 2169, the Transportation
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. In this bill, the State of
Michigan was allotted $15 million in the House bill, and $14 million in
the Senate bill. What does the conference report contain? Not $15
million for the State of Michigan, nor does it contain $14 million for
the State of Michigan. It contains only $7.5 million for the federally
funded roads, bridges, and highways for the next fiscal year for the
State of Michigan. While I support the basic tenets of this bill, this
level of funding is simply ludicrous and does a disservice to the hard-
working taxpayers of my State and of the 15th Congressional District of
Michigan, and I will vote against final passage of this conference
report.
Once again, Michigan taxpayers are donating our dollars to the rest
of the Nation. I refuse to stand idly by while our constituents get
fiscally abused. Paraphrasing a country song, while the donee States
get the gold mine, the donor States get the shaft. The funding formula
for the donor States must be corrected, and I will continue to fight
for full and fair equity in transportation funding for the State of
Michigan and the 15th Congressional District. Our taxpayers and our
constituents deserve no less than our full and devoted effort to this
end.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
conference report on H.R. 2169, the Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 1998. Chairman Frank Wolf and Senate
Chairman Richard Shelby have worked hard to ensure the transportation
infrastructure needs of the country are adequately funded. Funding for
surface transportation in this bill has been increased by 20 percent
and includes $300 million for the Appalachian Development Highway
System [ADHS].
Funding for the ADHS will help expedite completion of corridor X and
corridor V which run through the Fourth Congressional District, that I
am privileged to represent.
Corridor X is the proposed four-lane superhighway that will connect
the cities of Memphis, TN and Birmingham, AL. It is an unthinkable
omission from our National Highway System that there is no four-lane
route between these two important cities in the Southeast.
Corridor V is the proposed highway that begins east of Tupelo, MS,
and runs through northern Alabama to Chattanooga, TN. Once completed,
this highway will increase economic activity in northern Alabama and
provide an important link with corridor X.
Traditionally, the entire ADHS has been without a stable and
significant funding source and this has resulted in the completion of
only 78 percent of the corridors. By contrast, the Interstate Highway
System is 99 percent completed. The $300 million provided in H.R. 2169
is a giant step in the right direction for ADHS, corridor X and
corridor V.
In addition, President Clinton and the Congress have both submitted
legislation to reauthorize the Intermodel Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act [ISTEA] that include a specific funding category for the
ADHS. While there are numerous disputes over funding formulas and
overall funding levels in that debate, I am hopeful that whatever
version to reauthorize ISTEA becomes law includes a specific category
for ADHS. With a steady, stable source of funding, we can ensure that
the transportation infrastructure of the Appalachian region is ready to
meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.
Once again, I commend Chairman Wolf and Chairman Shelby for their
hard work and
[[Page H8752]]
look forward to working with them next year to build on this year's
success.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
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 401,
nays 21, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 510]
YEAS--401
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
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
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
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
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
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 (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
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
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--21
Camp
Campbell
Coburn
Conyers
Dingell
Ehlers
Frost
Granger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Johnson, E. B.
Kilpatrick
Levin
Paul
Sanford
Scarborough
Smith (MI)
Stabenow
Stupak
Upton
Wexler
NOT VOTING--11
Bonior
Brown (FL)
Chambliss
Gonzalez
Hilliard
Kennedy (RI)
Largent
Lewis (KY)
Murtha
Schiff
Waxman
{time} 1250
Messrs. CAMP, SMITH of Michigan, and LEVIN changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. GUTIERREZ 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.
____________________