[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 108 (Tuesday, August 4, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7175-H7176]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   OMISSION FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 1998

  A portion of the following was omitted from the debate of the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Frost at page H-6601 during consideration of 
H. Res. 510, providing for consideration of the H.R. 4328, Department 
of Transportation and related agencies appropriation Act 1999.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to make a fairly brief 
opening statement and then to yield back all of our time in an effort 
to try and move this along.
  Mr. Speaker, while I rise in support of this rule and this bill 
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation for fiscal 
year 1999. I am concerned that a point of order may lie against an 
amendment which seeks to limit expenditures of funds for a highway 
project funded in this bill. Mr. Speaker, should this point of order be 
pursued and ultimately upheld, the House will set a terrible precedent 
which may have ramifications far beyond this transportation 
appropriations.
  The matter is now being negotiated, but I do want to express my 
concern that a major change in the rules that govern this House was 
included in T-21 and was never even considered by the Committee on 
Rules. That being said, Mr. Speaker, while the funding level of this 
appropriations bill is slightly below the levels requested by the 
President in several areas, overall, the Committee on Appropriations 
did a good

[[Page H7176]]

job of providing adequate funding for most of the programs and services 
in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, while I rise in support of this rule and this bill 
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation for Fiscal 
Year 1999, I am concerned that a point of order may be against an 
amendment which seeks to limit expenditures of funds for a highway 
project funded in this bill. Mr. Speaker, should this point of order be 
pursued and ultimately upheld, the House will set a terrible precedent 
which may have ramifications far beyond this transportation 
appropriation. The matter is now being negotiated, but I do want to 
express my concern that a major change in the rules that govern this 
House were included in TEA-21 and were never even considered by the 
Committee on Rules. That being said, Mr. Speaker, while the funding 
level of this appropriations bill is slightly below the levels 
requested by the President in several area, overall the Appropriations 
Committee did a good job of providing adequate funding for most of the 
programs and services in the bill. The bill provides a total $46.9 
billion, a nine percent increase over last year's funding levels, much 
of which is required for the new and guaranteed funding levels for 
highway and transit programs pursuant to the recently enacted TEA-21 
bill.
  I am particularly pleased that the Committee has provided $10.6 
million for RAILTRAN funding for Phase II of a modern and efficient 
commuter rail connection between the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth. 
While funding for the Dallas Area Rapid Transit system North Central 
line is considerably less than the amount that had been requested, I 
remain hopeful that the Committee will, within the constraints imposed 
upon it by subcommittee allocations, be able to increase this funding 
when the bill goes to conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my concern about a particular 
problem that has been brought to my attention which affects a number of 
cities in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. Because TEA-21 
zeroed out operating assistance for transit systems in large urbanized 
areas, suburban cities within those metro areas have also found that 
they too have been restricted in the manner in which they can use 
federal transit funds. In my own congressional District, the cities of 
Arlington and Grand Prairie will be particularly hard hit by the 
elimination of operating assistance. In both instances, the suburban 
city transit systems are used exclusively to provide transportation for 
the elderly and the disabled but neither city has a dedicated sales tax 
to pay for such a system.
  Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I am currently writing legislation that 
seeks to correct this problem now confronting cities like Grand Prairie 
and Arlington. I hope to be able to introduce this bill before the 
August recess and would urge the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee as well as the Transportation Committee to give this 
legislation careful consideration. If the Congress does not provide a 
remedy, cities like Grand Prairie which serve 3,500 disabled and 
elderly persons a year will most likely have to cut back their services 
by 50 percent next year.
  Mr. Speaker, given the constraints with which the Committee must 
address the concerns of individual Members as well as the component 
parts of the Transportation Department, this is a good bill. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________