[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.

                          ____________________