[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 90 (Wednesday, June 23, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H4748-H4785]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 218 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2084.

                              {time}  1114


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2084) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation 
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and 
for other purposes, with Mr. Camp in the chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, 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).

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today the House considers the third appropriations bill 
for Fiscal Year 2000, the Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations bill. This bill includes appropriations for our 
Nation's highways, transit systems, funding for the Coast Guard, the 
Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, 
and several other smaller agencies both within and separate from the 
Department of Transportation.
  The bill totals $12.7 billion in discretionary budget authority, an 
increase of over $400 million over the fiscal year 1999 freeze level. 
Several of my colleagues have sought reductions to previous 
appropriations bills to bring those bills more in line with the levels 
provided in fiscal year 1999.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important for the House to understand that more 
than 70 percent of the funding provided in this bill as discretionary 
spending is not within the control of the Committee on Appropriations. 
Funding of $28.8 billion for the highways and transit programs, though 
included in this bill, is mandatory. This committee has no control over 
the spending levels.
  The bill does include increases for highway and transit programs, but 
the committee had no other choice. The bill presented to the House in 
no way alters the funding levels contained in TEA21.
  Let me also note, Mr. Chairman, that the House recently passed the 
authorization for the Federal Aviation Administration. That bill 
contains provisions which had the effect of increasing funding for the 
FAA by $14 billion over the levels assumed in the budget resolution. It 
guarantees $3 billion a year in general fund subsidies for aviation 
programs within the discretionary caps.
  Next year, if the FAA authorization bill were enacted, the only truly 
discretionary program over which this subcommittee would exert any 
control would be the Coast Guard. Creating new mandatory programs, 
whether they are off-budget or within the discretionary caps, creates 
more Federal spending, not less. Such mandatory spending is 
uncontrollable and makes the Congress' job of balancing the budget and 
reducing the national debt doubly difficult.
  If the committee were required to reduce program levels within the 
bill to the levels provided last year, the House would be asked to do 
one of three things: One, reduce funding for the Federal Aviation 
Administration just days after passing an authorization containing $14 
billion in new spending above the budget resolution and a few weeks 
after an aviation accident in Arkansas; two, reduce funding for the 
Coast Guard search and rescue operations and drug interdiction 
activities; or three, nearly eliminate all the Federal funding for 
Amtrak. The reported bill is a lean and balanced bill given the TEA21 
aviation needs and one that should be supported by the House.
  To briefly summarize, $4 billion for the Coast Guard, including $521 
million for drug interdiction; $10.5 billion for the FAA, including 
$2.25 billion for the AIP program; $27.7 billion for the Federal-aid 
highways program, the same level as guaranteed by TEA21; $368 million 
for NHTSA, again the same level as authorized; $718 million for the 
Federal Railroad Administration, including $571 million for Amtrak; 
$5.8 billion for the Federal Transit Administration, the same level as 
guaranteed by TEA21; and several smaller appropriations for other modal 
administrations and independent agencies.
  The bill has been developed in cooperation with the minority and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo). We have had a good close working 
relationship over the past several years,

[[Page H4749]]

and this year was no different. The bill has encountered no significant 
disagreements, passing through both the subcommittee and the full 
committee markups with only minor amendments. The administration has 
also indicated its support for the bill.
  The overarching priority for the committee in developing this bill 
has been safety, and I would like to bring several initiatives to the 
attention of the Members. Recently, the Inspector General of the 
Department of Transportation found that the Office of Motor Carriers, 
the office responsible for keeping trucks on the roads safe, had less 
than an arm's length relationship with the industry it regulates. Last 
year, the committee tried to transfer the Office of Motor Carriers from 
the Federal Highway Administration to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration. The committee was unsuccessful.
  This year the bill provides a total of $70 million more for 
inspectors but includes a limitation that none of these funds are 
available if the Office of Motor Carriers remains within the Federal 
Highway Administration. Hopefully, this limitation will encourage the 
administration and others to have legislation or to change the current 
placement and management of the Office of Motor Carriers as they have 
indicated they will do.
  I would just tell the Members, on Monday I went out on a highway 
truck inspection. A large number of the trucks that were inspected off 
of Route 50 in my Congressional district were in such violation of the 
law that they were pulled off the road, meaning they could not move 
until they were either fixed there or towed away. One out of every five 
trucks on the major interstates that my colleagues and their 
constituents and their families are driving on are very, very unsafe.
  This is an issue of safety. Fourteen to 15 people die every day with 
regard to accidents involving trucks. The bill provides a total of $4 
billion for the Coast Guard, an increase of $150 million over the 1999 
enacted level. Within the funds provided for the Coast Guard is $521 
million for drug interdiction activities, a 40 percent increase over 
last year's level.
  All in all, Mr. Chairman, it is a balanced bill, and I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record.

[[Page H4750]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN99.000



[[Page H4751]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN99.001



[[Page H4752]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN99.002



[[Page H4753]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN99.003



[[Page H4754]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JN99.004



[[Page H4755]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill/rule. I would like to 
thank Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Sabo for all the hard work 
they've put into this bill.
  On June 1st of this year, Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation 
finalized their acquisition of Conrail. As a result of this 
acquisition, train traffic through parts of my district, has increased 
significantly. The rail crossings in these cities literally split the 
cities in half, and increased traffic has been causing traffic back-ups 
and delays.
  With the Chairman's assistance and with commitments from NS and CSX 
and the State of Ohio, funds have been secured to construct grade 
separations at three different rail crossings in my district. When 
construction is completed, residents in Berea, Olmsted Falls and 
Olmsted Township will be relieved of traffic backups and delays as a 
result of train traffic.
  In too many cases they will still have to contend with train whistle 
noise. Once the grade separations are built, trains will not be 
required to sound their whistles when passing those specific 
intersections. Several densely populated neighborhoods in my 
congressional district will, however, experience an increase in whistle 
noise from passing trains. Many of these homes are located within 30 to 
40 feet of the railroad tracks, and the increased traffic through this 
area means increased noise for these residents.
  Currently, Federal regulations require each lead locomotive to have a 
warning device that produces a sound level of 96 decibels at least 100 
feet ahead of the locomotive. The State of Ohio requires trains to 
sound their whistles 1,320 feet before a crossing and continuously 
while passing through it.
  In addition, all major railroads have operating rules that require 
their engineers to blow train horns--normally four consecutive times--
at highway-rail grade crossings as a warning to motorists and 
pedestrians.
  These regulations were implemented to protect public safety, but the 
disturbance train whistles cause nearby residents should be addressed. 
In 1994, Congress passed the Swift Rail Development Act which directs 
the Federal Railroad Administration to mandate the use of train horns 
at all public crossings.
  This legislation also allows for ``quiet zones'' whenever communities 
establish alternatives that provide the same level of safety at 
crossings as that provided by train whistles. The FRA is in the process 
of drafting new regulations on train whistles and ``quiet zones.''
  I have written to Secretary Slater on the issue of quiet zones. I 
have proposed that the railroad tracks through the 10th District be 
designated as ``Pilot Corridors'' and be used to demonstrate the use of 
supplementary safety measures that would provide the same level of 
safety as the sounding of a locomotive horn.
  The pilot corridors would include Norfolk Southern's Nickel Plate 
Line, which runs through some of the very densely populated residential 
neighborhoods. The stretch of the Nickel Plate Line through Lakewood 
includes 27 at-grade crossings within 2.7 miles of track. The other 
tracks that should be included in the pilot corridors are the Conrail 
Mainline through Berea, Olmsted Falls, and Olmsted Township; and the 
stretch of the Berea-Greenwich line that runs through Berea and Olmsted 
Falls.
  All of these tracks are experiencing significant increases in freight 
traffic due to the operating changes of the Conrail acquisition. While 
I understand the importance of warning motorists, pedestrians, and 
cyclists at these crossings, my constituents are being awakened in the 
middle of the night by train operators that blow their horns loud and 
long. There must be a way that we can have safe railroad crossings 
without the railroads being a nuisance to residents living near tracks.
  Through a pilot corridor demonstration project in my district, we can 
use some of the latest safety procedures to ensure safety while 
protecting the peace and quiet of the neighborhoods. Photo-enforcement, 
median strips, 4-quadrant gates, long arm gates, one-way paired 
streets, and enforcement/education efforts are among the most up-to-
date supplementary safety measures available that may help maintain 
safety while keeping peace in our residential areas.
  I applaud the FRA in its efforts to draft and implement quiet zone 
regulations, and I hope that a portion of the funds appropriated in 
this bill can be used for that purpose. I believe we can maintain the 
safety of these rail lines while making areas like the cities in my 
district quieter environments in which to live.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I will not go through the details of the bill 
as the chairman did. But let me commend the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf) for conducting fair and very professional hearings in an 
excellent bill before us today.
  Let me mention the staff of the committee on the minority side. 
Cheryl Smith from the minority staff; Marjorie Duske from my personal 
staff, who worked very hard on this bill. Let me also thank the members 
of the majority staff, John Blazey, Rich Efford, Stephanie Gupta, Linda 
Muir, and David Whitestone, all of whom have worked very hard and in a 
very professional way on this bill. This work is outstanding.
  The bill before us is a good one, and should be passed. As always, 
one has a few concerns. I have some concern that funding for FAA 
operations may be a little tight. I am a little concerned over some 
technical language as relates to transit. But we will continue to look 
at those issues as we go to conference.
  But it is a good bill. It moves transportation funding in this 
country forward in a positive fashion. I would hope the bill would 
remain intact, and it would serve the House well.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 2000 
Transportation and related agencies appropriations bill. Let me start 
by commending Chairman Wolf for his hard work in putting together a 
bill that addresses the transportation needs of our citizens, 
communities and businesses. I also want to thank the majority staff--
John Blazey, Rich Efford, Stephanie Gupta, Linda Muir and David 
Whitestone--for the fine job that they do.
  This bill was developed in a bipartisan manner and is balanced and 
fair.
  The bill provides $12.7 billion in new budget authority and $50.7 
billion in total resources. While technically speaking this level is 
$400 million over last year, the bill actually provides new budget 
authority about equal to last year's level, adjusted for $400 million 
in one-time rescissions adopted last year that cannot be continued into 
2000.
  Mr. Chairman, two-thirds of the outlays in the bill are mandated 
highways and transit firewalls in TEA-21. As a result, obligation 
levels for highway programs increase by $2.2 billion or 8.5 percent 
over 1999 and $6.2 billion or 29 percent since 1998. Transit obligation 
authority will increase by $432 million or 8.1 percent over 1999 and 
$953 million or 20 percent since 1998.
  The FY2000 Transportation appropriations bill is just $425 thousand 
below its 302(b) allocation in budget authority and at the 302(b) 
allocation in outlays. These 302(b) allocations are adequate, but not 
generous, and they are absolutely necessary if we are to fund vital 
safety, security and operational requirements of the Coast Guard, the 
FAA, and AMTRAK.


                              Coast Guard

  The bill provides $3.3 billion in discretionary resources and $721 
million in mandatory resources for the Coast Guard. This provides a 
discretionary increase of $116 million or 3.6 percent over 1999, 
excluding mandatory retired pay and excluding 1999 emergency 
supplementals which will fund some year 2000 pay requirements. While 
these levels are short of the President's request, I believe they are 
adequate for the Coast Guard to accomplish its national defense, search 
and rescue, and law enforcement missions.
  Coast Guard drug interdiction activities are funded at $541 million--
a 40 percent increase over the 1999 level.
  In addition, we have had great interest from some members in certain 
Coast Guard facilities. This bill does not mandate the closure of any 
facilities. In fact, the bill ensures that air facilities in Long 
Island and Michigan will remain open, and provides funding for a new 
air facility in Illinois for southern Lake Michigan.


                    Federal Aviation Administration

  With regard to aviation, this bill does not shortchange the FAA. It 
includes $10.5 billion for the FAA, primarily to fund increased air 
traffic control and airport development requirements. This provides a 
10 percent increase of $985 million, including a $300 million or 15 
percent increase for the airport improvement program--funded at its 
highest level ever of $2.25 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is concern about some of the 
reductions in the FAA operations budget, particularly those that may 
impact the air traffic controllers pay agreement. I share these 
concerns and intend to work diligently in conference with the Senate to 
ensure that we have adequately funded all aspects of the new air 
traffic controllers compensation agreement negotiated with the FAA last 
year.

[[Page H4756]]

                                 Amtrak

  Mr. Chairman, this bill also includes $571 million in capital grants 
for AMTRAK--An amount that is $37 million or 6 percent below last 
year's level. Since FY1995, funding for AMTRAK in this bill has been 
cut by over $200 million or nearly 30 percent.
  The bill also provides AMTRAK with the flexibility it needs to use 
these funds for preventive maintenance on equipment and track--a good 
business practice adopted by other transportation modes.
  In our hearings this year, we heard testimony from both AMTRAK and 
the DOT inspector general about the progress AMTRAK is making toward 
operational self-sufficiency. Ridership is up. Revenues are up.
  Nevertheless, we also heard testimony that AMTRAK must receive the 
entire $571 million in this bill if AMTRAK is to continue to launch 
high speed rail, make improvements in its performance, and meet its on-
going financial obligations. AMTRAK is relying on receiving the full 
amount of its FY2000 request, and anything less than that amount could 
effectively force the railroad into bankruptcy.
  In closing, the FY2000 Transportation appropriations bill deserves 
our strong support. I urge members to support it and to reject any 
amendments to cut the funding provided in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Cook).
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, Salt Lake City has been selected the site 
of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. Hosting the games poses a significant 
challenge to any area, particularly with respect to transportation. 
This challenge is manageable, however, with support from the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COOK. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the committee recognizes the importance of a 
successful Winter Olympic Games to the Salt Lake community, the State 
of Utah, and to the entire country. In light of the national interest 
in a successful Olympic experience in Salt Lake City, the subcommittee 
bill includes almost $75 million for various transportation 
infrastructure investments. These funds are available for 
transportation planning, park and ride lots, intelligent transportation 
systems, buses, highways, and the south-north light rail system. These 
appropriations were secured, I might say, by the diligence of the 
gentleman from Salt Lake City.
  The bill, however, does include a prohibition on the use of Federal 
funds to execute a letter of no prejudice, a letter of intent or full 
funding grant agreement for the west-east light rail line. This 
limitation was added by the committee and was not requested by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook). I and the committee staff have spoken 
with the gentleman and his staff to discuss the reasons why, in the 
opinion of the committee, this limitation is necessary and appropriate 
and in the interest of the American taxpayer.
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the generosity of the committee 
for including appropriations for Salt Lake City and its surrounding 
communities to meet the requirements of the Olympic Games. The chairman 
and his staff of the committee have spoken with me and my staff about 
the reasons why the limitation on the west-east line was included in 
the bill.
  It is my hope that over the next several months that I and other 
members of the Utah delegation could address the issues identified by 
the committee and seek ways to provide the necessary appropriations to 
ensure a successful Winter Games in Salt Lake Valley.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook), 
we look forward, the committee and the members, to working with the 
gentleman from Utah and other members of the delegation to address the 
most critical transportation requirements related to the Salt Lake City 
2002 Winter Olympic Games, and I appreciate the help of the gentleman.
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his work.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  (Mr. LEWIS of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman, and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member, for their good work on this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2084.
  Metropolitan Atlanta is facing a crisis. Declining air quality and 
bumper to bumper traffic are clouding Atlanta's future.
  The people who bear the heaviest burden of air pollution--poor 
people, the elderly, and children--are those who most need our 
protection. As we speak, Atlanta's hospitals are bracing for a rush of 
respiratory emergencies as this season's ozone season approaches.
  Traffic in and around Atlanta is so congested that the term ``quick 
commute'' has become an oxymoron. Parents spend more time in traffic 
than attending little league games and PTA meetings. Atlantans now rank 
traffic, public transportation and air pollution alongside education 
and crime as their top concerns.
  More roads will not solve Atlanta's problem. In fact, more roads are 
not an option. Federal funding cannot be used for road construction 
because Georgia has not filed the State Improvement Plan required by 
the Clean Air Act.
  The best way to improve this situation and the quality of life for my 
constituents is to expand the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit 
Authority system.
  MARTA's Board has identified the western light rail extension as the 
most cost effective addition to the system. The project would reduce 
congestion and air pollution, and improve access to educational and 
employment resources--linking thousands of students to Georgia Tech 
University and workers to Fulton County Industrial Park.
  While I realize the severe constraints we face in making responsible 
decisions about spending our transportation tax dollars, one million 
dollars dedicated to studying the MARTA west side extension is a sound 
and responsible investment.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Pastor), a very hard-working member of our subcommittee.
  (Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for bringing forth a fair, 
bipartisan bill through the subcommittee and also through the full 
committee, and I want to thank him for working with us and congratulate 
him on the bill.
  There are two issues that are addressed in this bill that I would 
like to take a few minutes to talk about. One deals with an issue that 
he talked about and it deals with the issue of truck safety on our 
highways. He should be commended for bringing that issue forth and 
highlighting it.
  We had a hearing in which we had interest groups that were making 
presentations at that hearing, and there were several options that were 
proposed. One would be to strengthen the Office of Motor Carriers to 
ensure that the enforcement of safety becomes its objective. Also, the 
possibility of creation of an office within the Department of 
Transportation whose only objective would be truck safety.
  There are several hybrids. The most recent one that I read about was 
former Congressman Mineta's proposal and suggestion what we can do and 
should adopt in terms of strengthening the enforcement of truck safety 
on our highways. So I commend the chairman and I look forward to 
working with him to resolving this issue.
  The other issue that I would like to commend the committee, the 
ranking member, and also the chairman is the issue of truck safety as 
it deals with our borders. The Inspector General, in a report, told us 
that California seems to have adequate safety inspection along the 
borders, but Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona are lacking somewhat in 
terms of ensuring that the trucks coming across from Mexico meet all 
the safety standards.
  The chairman and the ranking member have addressed this problem by 
providing monies so that the Department of Transportation would have 
additional Federal inspectors at the borders and also would provide 
monies to the States so that they could establish facilities where we 
could conduct these safety inspections.

[[Page H4757]]

                              {time}  1130

  I hope that as this bill goes forward through the House to conference 
that the issue of truck safety at the borders will be addressed with 
additional resources made available to the States and additional 
Federal inspectors also being made available to the border. I 
congratulate the ranking member and the chairman for a great bill and 
move its adoption.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary Miller).
  (Mr. GARY MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of H.R. 2084, the fiscal year 2000 Transportation Appropriations Bill. 
I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for their hard work in crafting 
this bill in such a good, bipartisan manner. H.R. 2084 appropriates 
$13.4 billion in new budget authority for transit programs for fiscal 
year 2000, $437.8 million more than last year.
  Some of the dollars have a great deal of importance to my district 
which includes Ontario International Airport located in my district. 
$2.25 billion is appropriated for the Airport Improvement Program, $300 
million more than last year and $650 million more than the President 
requested.
  $957.1 million to procure air traffic control facilities and 
equipment, an increase of 13.4 percent from the previous fiscal year. 
The bill also provides funding for key projects located in and around 
my district. H.R. 2084 provides $3 million for fleet replacement for 
the Foothill Transit Agency, $1 million for the Orange County 
Transitway Corridor, $1 million for the purchase of compressed natural 
gas buses for San Bernardino County, and $7 million for acquisition of 
buses for Los Angeles County.
  Finally, the bill provides $5 million for oceanic air traffic 
modernization which is extremely important to American airline 
passengers traveling to and from Asia.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a new member of our subcommittee.
  (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank very much the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of our subcommittee, for his 
tireless, equal, just work and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), 
our ranking member, who has certainly been a leader in providing for 
each of us the input we have wanted as we discussed this transportation 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation. As a member of 
Michigan's appropriations transportation team for 14 years, I find 
coming here to the United States Congress to be quite a blessing to 
work in a bipartisan way on such a very important bill that affects all 
of us as American citizens.
  We heard a lot of testimony on truck safety and what we need to do to 
begin to address it, and we did that in a bipartisan fashion. I know 
there were many, many requests for transit assistance and because of 
the limited dollars that we are able to work with, we were not able to 
fill all of those. We hope to work more on this.
  I thank the committee and the staff for, in a bipartisan way, making 
sure that we did what we could with those dollars that were available 
to us. A few of my colleagues from Michigan are a bit upset that some 
of their concerns were not taken into heed, and that is mainly because 
I did not know about them, but I will work with the entire Michigan 
delegation as we move to conference.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis) have certain interests that they would like to see 
addressed. Again we will work with them as we move to conference. As a 
new member of this subcommittee and under the leadership of the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Sabo), I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this most 
important, very fine, bipartisan appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support for H.R. 2084, the 
Transportation Appropriations bill for the next fiscal year. This 
responsible, reasonable and rational bill is the result of a lot of 
hard work, long hours and diligence on behalf of both my Democratic and 
Republican colleagues and staff, and shows that Congress can be both 
fiscally prudent and make a real change for improving the 
transportation needs of our nation.
  As one of the newest members to the august Appropriations Committee, 
I am pleased to be part of this debate that will be the first bill from 
one of the two subcommittees on which I am honored to serve. While this 
bill provides $50.7 billion in total funding to highway, highway 
safety, and mass transit programs, almost 70 percent of this money is 
part of the guarantee from the Transportation Efficiency Act of the 
21st Century, or TEA-21. As my colleagues know, this money is beyond 
the scope and control of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Transportation. As we point out in our Committee Report, the funding 
increases associated with TEA-21 have used up most of the 8.5 percent 
increase in outlays allocated for the next fiscal year. As a result, we 
had to make many difficult decisions with the meager amount of funds 
that was available.
  This bill does many great things, and I would like to point out some 
specific additions:
  The bill will expedite the backlog of sexual harassment cases at the 
FAA. FAA Administrator Jane Garvey is to be commended for her hard work 
and effort at eliminating the problem of sexual harassment at the FAA, 
and we were successful in getting language added that would hopefully 
eliminate this backlog of cases.
  The bill provides that the Department of Transportation work hard to 
ensure that qualified small businesses, women-owned businesses, and 
minority-owned businesses get their fair share of the advertising pie.
  This bill provides more funding for road safety and innovative 
programs that will make travel safer for all Americans.
  I am especially honored to serve on this Subcommittee as I served the 
majority of my career as an elected member for the Michigan House of 
Representatives on the same Subcommittee. As such, I have over 20 years 
of experience working with transportation-related issues and budgets 
for the State of Michigan, and I am glad to be able to use this 
knowledge to improving the transportation needs of all Americans. As 
the first Democratic Member of this Committee since the retirement of 
Congressman Bob Carr, I want to add and note that I am ready and 
willing to work with all of the different transportation entities of 
the State of Michigan to ensure that Michigan retains its fair share of 
these meager resources. While we were not able to meet everyone's 
transportation needs, it is my sincere hope and desire that we will be 
able to sit down together and try to help my colleagues during 
conference committee.
  As I said earlier, I want to work with all of my Michigan 
colleagues--Democratic and Republican alike--during conference 
committee on this bill. I want to, however, cite some specific 
examples. Congressman Dale E. Kildee has been ardently working with the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to secure funding to upgrade the 
antenna system at Bishop Airport. According to the December 8, 1998 
edition of the Flint Journal, ``In dozens of documents cases this year, 
air traffic controllers have lost radar signals of aircraft in Flint's 
airspace. Federal Aviation Administration documents show the radar is 
not scheduled to be replaced until September 2002. FAA officials, 
controllers and technicians have said they do not believe the system's 
weaknesses are compromising the safety of pilots and fliers, but could 
cause delays and added stress for controllers.'' Because Congressman 
Kildee was focusing his efforts at the FAA, Congressman Kildee was not 
able to make a formal request to the Subcommittee in time for 
consideration of this budget. I want to make a formal request that, 
among my Michigan colleagues, we give full consideration to Congressman 
Kildee's issue, and hope that we can work out something during 
conference consideration.
  I also wanted to assist Congressman John Lewis of Georgia in 
confronting the difficult task of meeting the transportation needs of a 
rapidly growing population in Atlanta, Georgia. Congressman Lewis is 
seeking support for expanding the service of his region's wonderful 
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, and it is also may hope 
that we are able to work with Congressman Lewis during conference 
committee on this issue as well.
  Finally, I would like to once against thank the hard work that Ms. 
Cheryl Smith and Mr. John Blazey on putting this whole package 
together. Sometimes, we forget that we are fortunate to have a 
dedicated staff willing to pay the price of long hours and thankless 
service that public service requires.
  Again, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

[[Page H4758]]

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. First, I would like to congratulate my 
colleague from Virginia for his work on the transportation bill today. 
I have an issue, however, that I would like to bring to his attention.
  Mr. Chairman, the Rock County Airport which is located in the 
district that I serve has recently begun to see an increase in air 
traffic for business deliveries to local employers.
  In order to accommodate these important deliveries, the Rock County 
Airport is in desperate need of improvement. Rock County began work on 
these improvements, but Federal assistance is needed to address this 
immediate need. These improvements are critical not only to the local 
businesses in the district I represent but also to the local economy 
and the livelihood of the employees who work at these businesses.
  I understand the committee report has included a list of airports 
which the committee directs the FAA to give priority consideration for 
grant funding next year. Would the gentleman be willing to communicate 
to the Federal Aviation Administration that these improvements to the 
Rock County Airport are to be considered a priority for grant funding 
as well?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Absolutely. I appreciate my colleague from Wisconsin 
bringing this important issue to our attention. I understand the merits 
of the project. I am committed to making sure that it is communicated 
to the FAA that this project receives the same priority consideration 
as those included in the committee report. The gentleman has my word on 
that.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. I 
sincerely appreciate my colleague's commitment. I look forward to 
working with him on the Rock County Airport issues.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), one of the members who always has very 
high interest in the Coast Guard.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I do stand here in strong support for the United States 
Coast Guard and to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for their leadership in crafting 
this bill under such tight budget constraints. I also applaud them for 
increasing the Coast Guard's acquisition, construction, and 
improvements account to help replace its aging vessels and aircraft and 
to thank them for including readiness funding in the supplemental bill 
passed earlier this year. However, the administration's requested level 
for operating expenses represents the absolute minimum required for the 
Coast Guard to perform the fundamental duties it has been assigned by 
the Congress.
  Let us not forget that these services often are matters of life and 
death. The men and women of the Coast Guard have put their lives on the 
line every day for 200 years to save thousands of recreational and 
commercial mariners. Over 45,000 people in the last decade alone have 
been saved by the Coast Guard.
  Moreover, the General Accounting Office has documented that during 
the 1990s, the Coast Guard has been assigned vastly increased 
responsibilities while its workforce has been shrunk by nearly 10 
percent and has operated within a budget that has risen by only 1 
percent in actual dollars. The Coast Guard's new assignments go 
considerably beyond basic vessel safety and search-and-rescue, 
including marine environmental protection, fisheries management, 
overseas military port security, international maritime training, and, 
of course, drug interdiction.
  In the wake of these increased mandates, at the same time as a 
decrease is planned in search-and-rescue spending, the Coast Guard 
needs adequate funding to meet its new tasks and perform its 
traditional but critical basic services to protect people, the 
environment, and the United States economic interests.
  Again, I thank the appropriators for their hard work in meeting the 
challenges of assembling this spending bill and look forward to 
continuing to work with the committee to increase funding to at least 
the administration's requested level.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. King), the great author of a new book which he hopes becomes 
a best seller.
  Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and, most importantly, I thank him for his kind remarks about the 
book.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for this important 
legislation to fund transportation projects in fiscal year 2000 and to 
communicate my sincere appreciation to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) for his efforts in including $4 million for a project of great 
importance to me and my constituents, the New York Metropolitan 
Transportation Authority's Long Island Railroad East Side Access 
Project. This project, to be completed by the year 2009, is a major 
commuter rail improvement project which will enable 50,000 existing and 
tens of thousands of new commuters on the Nation's busiest commuter 
rail line, the Long Island Railroad, to travel directly to final 
destinations on Manhattan's East Side without spending over half an 
hour backtracking on subways from Penn Station on the West Side.
  Over $100 million in combined prior Federal appropriations and State 
and local funds have already been dedicated to this critical project 
which will greatly improve transit flow and reduce vehicular traffic in 
the New York City region. East Side access is supported by a Statewide 
bipartisan majority of New York's congressional delegation and is the 
top funding transportation priority of Governor Pataki.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman from Virginia and the 
other members of the committee as this vital project goes forward. I 
thank the gentleman for all his courtesies and generosity on this 
project.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from New York. I 
would like to point out that the Federal Transit new starts funds 
provided in H.R. 2084 for this project will help. They would not be 
there without his effort, and will help to maximize previous Federal 
investments in the 63rd Street Subway Tunnel and Connector Project. All 
these projects are linked together to alleviate congestion, promote 
environmentally sound transportation, and enable weary commuters to 
spend more quality time with their families by reducing lengthly daily 
commutes.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman from New York and other 
members of the New York delegation to ensure that this project will be 
adequately funded as it moves into the heavy construction phase.
  Mr. KING. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), one of the members of our 
subcommittee.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Virginia is aware of the 
recent media reports detailing the use of racial profiling by numerous 
law enforcement agencies as they patrol our Nation's highways. Indeed, 
one study by a nongovernmental entity found that along the I-95 
corridor in Maryland, African Americans comprised only 17 percent of 
all drivers, yet accounted for 73 percent of all police searches.
  As chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, I have been directed 
by the Caucus to request the General Accounting Office to conduct its 
own comprehensive study to determine the extent and magnitude of this 
problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I call this to the gentleman's attention so that he 
will know that next year, I will address this issue in our hearings. 
These citizens are driving on roads paid for with funding in the 
Transportation Appropriations bill, yet are experiencing discriminatory 
law enforcement practices on these highways. I hope that next year we 
can explore whether there are avenues through the Department of 
Transportation to assist in eradicating this unfair practice.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H4759]]

  Mr. CLYBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for drawing our 
attention to this important matter. I am hopeful that his GAO study 
will be completed by our hearing schedule next year, and I look forward 
to examining its results. I look forward to working with the gentleman 
from South Carolina in addressing the issue.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentleman for his commitment to working 
together to find a solution to an issue about which millions of African 
Americans harbor intense feelings.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  (Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in my capacity as the ranking Democrat on the 
Subcommittee on Ground Transportation. I want to express my 
appreciation to the gentleman from Virginia for giving some funding 
priority to those transit new start projects which are under full 
funding grant agreements.
  The authorizing committee undertook an extensive review of these 
projects when preparing legislation enacted last year as TEA 21 which 
among its many initiatives authorized the transit program through 
fiscal year 2003.
  Among the new start projects being funded in the pending legislation 
is the Tren Urbano in San Juan, Puerto Rico. As I noted in a recent 
letter to the gentleman from Virginia, San Juan is densely populated 
and at times its transportation facilities appear to be paralyzed with 
congestion. In fact, downtown San Juan has an exceedingly high vehicle 
density, some 4,200 vehicles per square mile, which is expected to 
increase by almost 50 percent by 2010.
  In a situation like this, the Tren Urbano system is a logical, 
environmentally benign means to facilitate transportation in the area.
  The pending measure, in accordance with the recommendations of the 
FTA, would appropriate $82 million for Tren Urbano for the next fiscal 
year. I applaud the committee and the ranking member for making this 
recommendation.
  However, what I find disturbing is language included in the Committee 
Report accompanying this appropriation measure.
  In the Report, the Committee notes it is troubled by the findings of 
a financial management oversight contractor which indicate that the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico may not have sufficient financial resources 
to build and maintain the project. Consequently, a number of time 
consuming reports are required before the appropriation would be 
available.
  First, I would note that the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, in its extensive review of this project, did not at any 
point find anything which would lead one to question the ability of 
Puerto Rico to meet its financial responsibilities with respect to Tren 
Urbano and at the same time adequately meet other transportation 
requirements of the region. In addition, earlier this year the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee requested that the General 
Accounting Office conduct a review of all existing projects under Full 
Funding Grant Agreements. The results of this review are expected 
shortly.
  Second, it is my understanding that the financial management report 
referenced by the Committee Report does not exist, at least, in final 
form. With all due respect to the Committee, it is relying on hearsay 
and innuendo rather than official reports with respect to this 
particular project. The fact of the matter is that the so-called 
financial management report at issue here was never approved by the 
FTA.
  Third, I would urge the Committee to rethink the costly bells and 
whistles it has recommended be attached to this appropriation. The 
various reports called for in the Committee Report are simply not 
necessary, especially since a GAO review is already underway, and will 
cause delays. As we all know, delays in transportation projects lead to 
increased costs, and cost overruns, and that is something we are all 
seeking to avoid. In this regard, I would emphasize that statements 
made in a Committee Report, even from the Appropriations Committee, do 
not carry the force of law.
  Again, I applaud the Committee's funding recommendation in this 
matter but strongly urge that the appropriation be made final by the 
Conference Committee without unnecessary strings attached.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Transportation Appropriations Bill. Unlike the bill on the Senate side, 
the House version understands that each State has different needs. The 
Senate bill placed a cap on transit spending for a State.

                              {time}  1145

  This cap, if enacted, would mean a loss of over $160 million in 
transit aid to New York City and State alone. In a country which is 
trying to emphasize the importance of using public transportation these 
caps are counterproductive.
  The House bill uses a funding formula which takes into account the 
number of mass transit riders a region handles. The same Senators who 
may support caps for mass transit I would assume would be opposed to 
similar caps on highway spending. The House bill shows an understanding 
that funding for mass transit is equally as important as other 
transportation funding.
  I commend both the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for constructing a bipartisan 
balanced bill. I do wish to raise one concern:
  In this bill there is money earmarked for the East Side Connector, 
which will allow commuters from Queens and Long Island to end up in New 
York City. This project is worthy and important, but it only makes 
sense if at the same time we institute a plan to finish the Second 
Avenue subway in New York City. When the estimated 50,000 new commuters 
wind up in Grand Central in New York most of them will have to continue 
on an additional commuter line, the Lexington Avenue line. Currently 
the Lexington Avenue line is the only one that goes up the East Side of 
Manhattan, and it is already terribly crowded. Adding thousands of 
additional commuters will only add to the already overburdened state of 
this line. The solution is to create a line along Second Avenue in 
Manhattan, which has been in the works on and off for over 30 years, 
and part of it has already been constructed. This subway line will 
allow the city's economic growth to continue and make the subway system 
an asset and not a hindrance. The Senate bill allows for funding to 
continue the process of building the Second Avenue subway, and I do 
support this bill, but I hope that in conference the appropriators will 
follow the Senate version.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
this time to me, and I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for 
all his incredible work, and I rise today in support of this bill and 
commend him for his efforts. I especially want to thank the gentleman 
from Virginia for including $6 million in this bill for the redesign of 
the New Jersey/New York Metropolitan airspace. This is a critical 
effort that will benefit not only the residents of northern New Jersey 
and New York State, but other parts of the region. Once completed, this 
redesign will become the model for other regions such at Boston, 
Washington, D.C., Chicago and Miami.
  For over a decade residents in my district in northern New Jersey 
have been plagued by the problem of aircraft noise. According to the 
Federal Aviation Administration, redesign of the airspace will solve 
many of the region's air noise problems. The airspace over Newark, 
Kennedy and LaGuardia airports is the busiest, most congested and most 
complex in the Nation. These three major airports have over 1 million 
flight arrivals and departures a year. Further, the high volume of 
flights is complicated by the fact that these three airports share the 
same airspace. When Newark changes departure and arrival patterns, 
adjustments have to be made at Kennedy and LaGuardia airports as well.
  Last year the FAA announced it would begin the process of redesigning 
the airspace over New Jersey and New

[[Page H4760]]

York Metropolitan region. This was to be the first area in the country 
addressed by the FAA, and results could be applied to other regions 
during future airspace redesign processes. The $6 million included in 
the transportation appropriations bill will enable the airspace 
redesign to move ahead in a timely manner. It will provide much needed 
relief from the constant loud intrusion of aircraft noise.
  Again, my thanks to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for 
including this critical funding in his bill, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee for yielding this time to me. I wish to comment on section 
332 of the transportation appropriations bill.
  The Committee on Appropriations has seen fit to include language 
which prohibits the National Highway Transportation Safety Agency from 
implementing a final rule for Section 656(b) of the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. By preventing the 
implementation of a final rule, section 332 will undermine the key 
provision of the 1996 immigration law, a law passed by overwhelming 
majorities in both Houses of Congress. By nullifying laws to the 
appropriations process, this measure undermines the legislative process 
itself.
  Regarding the section 656(b) of the immigration law, it is 
unfortunate to see the national ID card hysteria is alive and well. I 
do not support a national ID card and do not know anyone in Congress 
who does. I do support immigration laws that stop illegal aliens from 
using fraudulent documents to take jobs and benefits away from 
Americans. There is no national ID card in the 1996 immigration reform 
law. It merely directed the Department of Transportation to establish 
reasonable standards for permitting the abuse of State issued driver's 
licenses. It is entirely optional for States to use a Social Security 
number on State driver's licenses. The 1996 immigration reform law 
encourages States to create driver's licenses, birth certificates and 
other forms of ID that are hard to counterfeit. Fourteen States, for 
example, already have tamper resistant driver's licenses, but only in 
the wildest imagination does any of this constitute a national ID card.
  Neither the legislation, nor the proposed rules, require that the 
individual States include an individual's Social Security number on the 
driver's license. This will remain a State option. It is not mandatory.
  Driver's licenses and Social Security cards are the most fraudulently 
duplicated IDs, and without making them tamper resistant we are asking 
illegal aliens to use them to commit fraud and, of course, wrongfully 
gain citizenship.
  While I will not ask my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2084, the 
transportation appropriations bill we are now considering, I wish to 
voice my strong concerns about this provision and the process which 
allowed it to be included in the bill. If the legislative process means 
anything, we have to stop overturning and changing legislation through 
appropriation bills.
  Mr. Chairman, I plan to work with members of the Committee on 
Appropriations, including the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), to 
ensure that this does not happen again.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a brief colloquy 
with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation, regarding Federal Aviation 
Administration's acquisitions of transponder landing systems.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2084 and the accompanying committee report directs 
the FAA to acquire and install several transponder landing systems. Is 
it the gentleman's understanding that the intent of the report language 
also directs FAA to move immediately to commission these systems 
pending a successful in-service review and validation of TLS at the 
Watertown, Wisconsin, airport, and further, that FAA should perform the 
in-service review and validation at Watertown as soon as possible?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, that is my understanding, that the 
transponder landing system was issued a type certificate by FAA 
Administrator Jane Garvey during May of 1998, and barring any setbacks 
with the review and validation, FAA should proceed to acquire and 
commission these systems as soon as practicable.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia 
very much for allowing me to engage in this colloquy.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank the committee for 
its work and to ask that they once again consider in conference as they 
come back with the Senate report and obviously the House report; in the 
House Report there is $2 million for the Blue Line in Chicago. It is a 
line that needs to be completely rebuilt at a cost estimate of $425 
million. The State of Illinois has passed a rather robust 
transportation authorization of over a billion dollars that the Chicago 
Transit Authority will receive to redo those lines, so from the State 
point of view, and of course Mayor Daley and the Governor of the State 
of Illinois have worked together on the legislative process, so we have 
got the dollars from the State of Illinois to really make a big 
infusion, but we have only been able to receive $3 million thus far 
from the authorized amount of money at $325 million from the House of 
Representatives.
  So I would simply ask that in conference my colleagues take another 
look at the needs of the Blue Line in Chicago, and I thank the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Sabo) for their work on this issue.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. I 
want to take a moment just to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) for not only his friendship but his leadership on issues 
important to Illinois and the district I represent, and I particularly 
want to thank him, Mr. Chairman, for his assistance in response to the 
Amtrak tragedy that occurred in my district in the village of 
Bourbonnais, and I really appreciate the assistance and the 
extraordinary effort that he gave on behalf of the local communities 
there.
  I also want to point out that this legislation today that is before 
us is good for Illinois. I would point out that this legislation 
includes $25 million in new start funds for extensions, for new 
extensions, for Metro which is the mass transit rail system serving the 
suburbs as well as Chicago Metropolitan Area. I point out particularly 
that one of the beneficiaries of this new funding will be extension of 
the Southwest Line, an additional 11 miles out to the village of 
Manhattan in the district that I represent; would also note that this 
will allow for additional expansion beyond Manhattan, out to the Joliet 
Arsenal development at the Midway National Tall Grass Prairie and 
Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery.
  This legislation also includes $1.6 million for the city of Joliet to 
assist with their maintenance of mass transit facility and help us with 
a bridge in the Morris area.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues very much for their able 
assistance and leadership.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Granger).
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this transportation 
appropriation. The business of transportation and appropriations is to 
fund important national projects, and few are as important as this. 
Transportation is the lifeline of our national economy. Our roads, our 
bridges, our highways, our railways and our airports are what connect 
the various parts of our American family. Product made in San Francisco 
can reach a market in San Antonio on a safe road

[[Page H4761]]

in a short period of time, and this propels the economic growth of our 
Nation and protects the safety of our drivers.
  So I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his 
leadership on this issue. He has done his best to make the most of this 
bill, and he and his staff have accepted the very difficult budget 
constraints we currently work under and produced a bill that we can all 
be proud of. I am proud to serve on his committee and proud of his 
work.
  I am especially pleased to point out to my colleagues that the bill 
includes a $1.6 billion increase for highway improvements and a $333 
million increase for airport improvements. These increases are in 
addition to a forty percent increase for the Coast Guard's Drug 
Interdiction Program. These increases represent priority funding for 
priority goals.
  I would also like to praise Chairman Wolf's ability to work with the 
other side of the aisle, identify key transportation needs and still 
develop a fiscally sound transportation bill. This bill proves that we 
in Congress can get it done if we get it together.
  When we lower our voices and raise our sights, it's amazing what we 
can accomplish. And this bill is proof of that. I am proud to be a 
member of this important and bipartisan committee and I look forward to 
working with Chairman Wolf in the future.
  In closing, I want to commend again Mr. Wolf for successfully 
steering this bill down the road to passage. And I urge all my 
colleagues to end this journey by voting this bill into law.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman. I rise today to reiterate my strong 
support for much-needed and already authorized funding for the Douglas 
Branch of the Chicago Transit Authority's Blue Line.
  I am extremely concerned about the inadequate level of funding H.R. 
2084 includes for the Blue Line and I urge conferees from the House and 
the Senate who will consider this legislation to dramatically increase 
funding for this vital project.
  The Douglas branch of the Blue Line is more than a century old. It 
has never undergone systematic capital improvements. Due to its age and 
deterioration, the Blue Line has become increasingly difficult to 
operate efficiently and safely.
  The House of Representatives clearly recognized the need to improve 
and rebuild the Douglas branch of the Blue Line and authorized federal 
funding of $315 million in TEA-21 legislation passed last year. 
Obviously, many projects were competing for this limited pool of money 
and this authorization represented a thoughtful and reasonable response 
to the needs of Chicago-area residents who use the Blue Line.
  In response to this federal authorization of funds, the State of 
Illinois has appropriated more money than is needed for the local 
matching portion of this project. Improving the Blue Line has the 
strong support of the entire Illinois Congressional delegation, the 
Illinois Legislature, Governor George Ryan and Chicago Mayor Richard M. 
Daley.
  The need for an adequate appropriation of funds could not be more 
urgent. The Chicago Transit Authority has reduced services on the line 
drastically, with weekend and late evening services eliminated. Speeds 
have been reduced considerably on the Blue Line, making daily commutes 
impossible or extremely inefficient for the 27,000 passengers who rely 
on this route to travel to work, school, health care facilities and 
other essential destinations.
  Mass transit is absolutely vital to the economic health of the 
Chicago area and the many communities this transit link serves 
directly, including the Pilsen and Little Village neighborhoods. The 
funding request I have been joined by local, state and federal leaders 
in making for the Blue Line is very important to the economic vitality 
of the community I represent.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 2084 includes only two million dollars in funding 
for the Douglas Branch of the Blue Line, far less than the $77 million 
that was requested for this year. This level of funding is inadequate 
to serve the needs of the residents who count on this vital transit 
line. I urge the members of this Congress to respond to the needs of 
the people of the Chicago area and provide the requested level of 
funding for the Blue Line.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to extend my most sincere thanks to 
Chairman Wolf and the Ranking Member, Mr. Sabo, and the Members of the 
Committee, for their willingness to provide funding for Sacramento's 
transportation priorities contained in the Department of Transportation 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2000.
  Funding in this legislation will allow Sacramento to make significant 
advancements on projects that are urgently needed to address the 
population growth and transportation inadequacies confronting our 
region. Specifically, I am grateful for $25 million for the Sacramento 
light rail extension project and the $1.25 million allocation for the 
Sacramento compressed natural gas bus program. Both projects are needed 
to assist efforts to ease traffic congestion and provide efficient, 
affordable, and environmentally sound modes of transportation to our 
region.
  I also thank the Committee for the $1 million in funds for the 
Sacramento Transportation Information Technology Project and seek 
clarification in noting that this program supports the efforts of 
Sacramento County, California. This project represents the latest 
undertaking by Sacramento County under a program that will permit our 
community to develop and implement a model intelligent transportation 
system. Watt Avenue is a major north-south artery in the region 
surrounded by tremendous geographic restrictions, making expansion 
extremely impractical. These restrictions result in much larger than 
normal traffic flows for an arterial of its character. By creating a 
transit priority system to permit queue jumping for buses, this program 
will improve transportation efficiency, increase traffic flow, reduce 
emissions of air pollutants, improve traveler information, and build on 
existing projects among other priorities.
  Again, on behalf of the Sacramento community, I thank the Committee 
for its recognition of these transportation priorities so vital to the 
stability and growth of our region.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman I rise to urge my colleagues 
to vote in favor of H.R. 2084, the Transportation Appropriations for FY 
2000. I would like to thank both Chairman Wolf of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Transportation and the Ranking Member, Congressman 
Sabo, for including much needed projects for the city of Houston, as 
well as those for the entire State of Texas.
  The bill provides a total of 50.7 Billion, 7% more than current 
funding, with nearly 70% of the total earmarked for highway safety and 
mass transit programs under guarantees set by the new highway and 
transit law (``TEA21'') enacted by Congress last year. The amount 
provided for highways includes $1.5 Billion more than initially 
authorized, due to a TEA21 mechanism that automatically increases 
guaranteed highway spending to match increases in gas tax revenues to 
the Highway Trust Fund.
  Both the Congress and the Administration recognized the need to 
invest more resources in our transportation system with the enactment 
last year of TEA-21 and the firewalls established for road, bridge and 
mass transit needs. H.R. 2084 affirms the goal by funding roads, 
bridges and mass transit systems at TEA-21's firewall levels. In 
addition, this measure will increase funding for federal transportation 
programs, including additional resources for needed improvements to 
airports and aviation infrastructure.
  The investment levels contained in this bill are a major step in 
beginning to close America's infrastructure funding shortfall and 
reversing decades of infrastructure disinvestment. As a result of that 
disinvestment, 59 percent of our roads are in poor to fair condition 
and nearly one third of our bridges are in disrepair. In addition, 22 
percent of all buses and 33 percent of all rail vehicles are over aged. 
The number of seriously congested airports rose from 22 percent to 32 
percent in less than 10 years.
  The measure provides $28.9 Billion for highway programs (6% more than 
the current level), $5.8 Billion for mass transit (8% more than current 
funding), $2.8 Billion for Coast Guard operations (8% less than in FY 
1999), $10.5 Billion for the FAA (10% more than the current amount), 
and $571 million from Amtrak (6% less than current funding).
  I am pleased by this report and would like to thank the Committee for 
the hard and diligent effort. I know that each member on the committee 
and their staffs put long hours into the formation of this bill, 
considering each request with the best interest of the nation in mind.
   Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the light rail option in 
Houston, Texas has not been explored as a viable alternative. As 
congestion continues to grow in our metropolitan areas we need to 
explore other options besides the automobile. I would have liked to see 
funds dedicated to the study of a light rail system in Houston.
  I would like to thank the Committee for including a total 
appropriation of $52.7 Million for the Houston Regional bus project. 
The plan, developed by Houston METRO, consists of a package of major 
improvements to the region's existing bus system. It includes major 
service expansion in most of the region, new and extended HOV 
facilities and ramps, several transit centers and park-and-ride lots, 
and supporting facilities.
  I am also thankful, Mr. Chairman, that the City of Houston received 
$1 million dollars for the redevelopment of its Main Street Corridor. 
This money will go to the revitalization of the heart of the 2000 
square mile Houston region. This backbone runs through both my district 
and that of Representative Ken Bentsen.
  The corridor runs from Buffalo Bayou north through downtown, midtown, 
Hermann Park,

[[Page H4762]]

and Texas Medical Center. Main Street links two important economic 
hubs--Downtown and Texas Medical Center, as well as entertainment, 
cultural, and governmental centers.
  To reinforce and sustain the development activity in the corridor, 
the City of Houston initiated the Main Street Corridor Redevelopment 
Program. The program focuses on the coordination of transportation, 
land development, and community systems. This program will ensure that 
the Main Street Corridor linking downtown to the Astrodome becomes an 
urban place befitting of local, national and international recognition 
in the next millennium.
  This project focuses on coordinated transportation and Community 
system planning for the eight-mile long Main Street Corridor--the ten-
mile square historic heart of the Houston region. Current and proposed 
highway, street, and transit investments will be planned in concert 
with substantial economic redevelopment to maximize efficiency of 
transport systems and guide real estate development and to preserve 
significant community assets. Long term results will increase 
development density, increase access to jobs, reduce automobile trips, 
lower emissions, and reduce long term capital investment in regional 
infrastructure.
  I thank both Chairman Wolf and Ranking member Sabo for their 
recognition of the worthiness of this investment in the infrastructure 
of Houston. I am hopeful that the Chairman and Ranking Member will 
protect this project when we proceed to conference, and add the 
additional $500,000 I have requested to keep this project on schedule. 
This revitalization is vital to ensuring the future of this center of 
commerce and business.
  I know that my constituents in the 18th Congressional District 
support providing the resources to meet these transportation needs. I 
believe that spending on America's infrastructure is truly a strong 
investment in the future of America.
  Once again, I want to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2084 and 
vote, yes for America's infrastructure future.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the research 
and development provisions in H.R. 2084, the Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, for FY 2000. 
As Chairman of the Committee on Science, I believe this bill's research 
funding provisions meet the requirements for a solid research and 
development base in support of the Department of Transportation's (DOT) 
mission. Like Chairmen Young and Wolf, I too recognize that investing 
in research today will improve the safety and efficiency of travel in 
the future.
  Last month the Science Committee passed H.R. 1551, the Federal 
Aviation Administration Civil Aviation Research and Development Act. 
The bill included a $208.5 million authorization for research and 
development programs at the Department of Transportation. Like H.R. 
2084, H.R. 1551 proposes a $173 million dollar commitment to the 
Research, Engineering and Development account at the Federal Aviation 
Administration. This is an increase of $23 million over the FY 1999 
enacted or a 15.3 percent increase for FAA Research and Development 
programs and will provide FAA with the resources necessary to expand 
their Research and Development activities.
  In addition, I am pleased H.R. 2084 funds the Advanced Technology 
Development and Prototyping function of the FAA's Facilities and 
Equipment account at a level of $33 million dollars. These critical 
projects and activities are assisting us to develop the next generation 
of communications, navigation and surveillance capabilities necessary 
to meet the projected increases in aviation in the 21st century.
  Similarly, the bill supports the Safe Flight 21 program at FAA at the 
authorized level of $16 million. Although I would have liked to have 
seen Safe Flight 21 in the research account, and not in the Facilities 
and Equipment account, I do believe this is a program of merit and 
worthy of support.
  While I believe H.R. 2084 provides DOT and FAA with the resources 
necessary to conduct world class research that is mission critical to 
DOT, I cannot support the bill as a whole. I believe that the $50.7 
billion appropriated by this legislation is more than we can afford for 
the Department of Transportation.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2084, the FY 
2000 Transportation Appropriations Bill.
  While this bill contains many worthy provisions, I was disappointed 
that no funding was included for Broward County's (FL) busing program. 
As my colleagues may recall, last year Congress appropriated $1 million 
for new buses in Broward County.
  Considering that Broward County is still rapidly expanding, and that 
current transit service is inadequate (especially in the western areas 
of the county), I am hopeful that some funding can be added in 
conference committee for this worthwhile program.
  Mr. Chairman, considering the numerous budgetary constraints Chairman 
Wolf is operating under, he did a commendable job in bringing this bill 
to the floor today, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2084, the 
bill making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies for the fiscal year 2000.
  As a new member of the Subcommittee, it has been a pleasure to be 
part of such a fair, bipartisan process. I particularly commend our 
Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and our Ranking 
Democrat, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for the good work 
they have done in developing this bill and the attention they have paid 
to fairly distributing funds among the various modes of transportation, 
and to balancing the needs of the nation with the needs of individual 
members and their districts.
  And I would be remiss if I did not express my appreciation and thanks 
to the staff, Cheryl Smith and Marjorie Duske on our side, John Blazey, 
Rich Efford, Stephanie Gupta, Linda Muir, and David Whitestone. They 
are thoroughly professional and dedicated public servants.
  Given the stringent budget constraints facing the Subcommittee, this 
bill is quite an accomplishment. Of considerable importance, the bill 
fully funds the highway and transit programs as called for in TEA-21, 
so that projects many of us worked hard to achieve can proceed without 
interruption. But it also provides the resources needed to continue the 
safe and efficient operation of our nation's transportation system. 
This system has been described as the circulatory system of America, 
without which our economy would clog and slow.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. Wolf and Mr. Sabo and 
all the other talented people who have worked so hard to develop this 
bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 
2084, the Fiscal Year 2000 Transportation Appropriations Act. This bill 
provides a total of $50.7 billion in FY 2000 for the Transportation 
Department and related agencies. The bill's funding includes $14.6 
billion in direct appropriations and nearly 70% of the bills funding 
comes from guarantees set forth in the Transportation Equity Act for 
the 21st Century--TEA-21.
  I would like to commend Chairman Frank Wolf and Ranking Member Sabo 
and the leadership of the Full Committee on Appropriations for putting 
together a bill that increases funding for highways, highway safety, 
transit, and operations at the Federal Aviation Administration.
  This bill provides $7 million for bus acquisition for Los Angeles 
County and $5 million for the Municipal Transit Operators Coalition. 
Further, this bill meets the transportation needs for the State of 
California. However, I am concerned that once this bill passes the 
House and moves to conference that it may be subject to the language 
offered to the Senate's bill. As part of last year's landmark highway 
and transit authorization bill, TEA-21, California is slated to receive 
14.6% of the total federal allocation for transit funding. However, the 
so-called ``Transit Equity Provision'' included as part of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee's FY 2000 Transportation Appropriations bill 
artificially caps California's share of transit funding at 12.5%. This 
reduction will result in a loss of at least $120 million for the State 
of California in fiscal year 2000.
  California accounts for roughly one-quarter of the nation's transit 
users, yet we receive only about 15% of the federal transit funding. A 
majority of our statewide transit capital programs are financed from 
state and local resources, but we need the federal funding to continue 
to provide and expand effective service and to spur economic growth. 
Furthermore, capping the state's federal transit aid will reopen the 
carefully crafted distribution formulas enacted just one year ago, and 
invite a host of new problems.
  When this bill goes to conference, I urge the leadership of both the 
Committee and Subcommittee to fight this provision and avoid re-opening 
TEA-21. I urge passage of this legislation and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 
2084, the FY2000 Transportation Appropriations Act.
  This Member would like to begin by commending the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the Chairman of the Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member of the Subcommittee, for their 
hard work in bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly recognizes the severe budget 
constraints under which the full Appropriations Committee and the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee operated. In light of these 
constraints, this Member is grateful and pleased that this legislation 
includes $1 million in funding for vital improvements to the bus 
maintenance facility in the City of Lincoln, Nebraska.

[[Page H4763]]

  The City's of Lincoln's bus system, known as StarTran, is the primary 
provider of public transportation services in the area, with 65 buses 
and vans serving over 1.7 million riders annually. The need for 
increased bus service in the area continues to grow, but Lincoln's 
share of Federal transit assistance has steadily declined over the last 
several years. As a result, the City has had to use more and more of 
its General Fund revenues just to maintain current StarTran services, 
which makes major projects such as facility improvements next to 
impossible without a one-time infusion of Federal dollars.
  For several years, the bus maintenance and operations facility have 
not provided adequate space for the duties that must be performed there 
and the result has been decreased safety and efficiency. For example, 
none of the current stalls in the maintenance area are capable of 
lifting a bus any more than a few inches because of lack of overhead 
clearance, sloping floors prevent what should be simple maintenance 
functions, and narrow stalls provide insufficient workspace around the 
buses.
  In order to correct these deficiencies, StarTran will use the Federal 
funds for the construction of a 15,000 square foot expansion adjacent 
to the current facility. This expansion would include new repair bays 
that would be properly sized with lift capabilities; an improved 
service and cleaning area; a level, safe, and more efficient work area; 
and a relocated tire and brake shop that will eliminate the need to 
perform tire work in the parking lot. These improvements would go a 
long way in providing the proper tools with which to maintain StarTran 
buses as well as a safe area for the department employees.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 2084.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time having been yielded back, pursuant to the 
rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute 
rule.
  The amendment printed in House Report 106-196 may be offered only by 
a Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in 
the reading of the bill, shall be considered read and shall not be 
subject to amendment.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read:
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of 
     Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                   Immediate Office of the Secretary

       For necessary expenses of the Immediate Office of the 
     Secretary, $1,867,000.

                Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary

       For necessary expenses of the Immediate Office of the 
     Deputy Secretary, $612,000.

                     Office of the General Counsel

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the General 
     Counsel, $9,000,000.

   Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
                                Affairs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, $7,632,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     there may be credited to this appropriation up to $1,250,000 
     in funds received in user fees.

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Budget and Programs, $6,770,000, including not 
     to exceed $40,000 for allocation within the Department for 
     official reception and representation expenses as the 
     Secretary may determine.

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Governmental Affairs, $2,039,000.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Administration, $17,767,000.

                        Office of Public Affairs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Public Affairs, 
     $1,836,000.

                         Executive Secretariat

       For necessary expenses of the Executive Secretariat, 
     $1,102,000.

                       Board of Contract Appeals

       For necessary expenses of the Board of Contract Appeals, 
     $520,000.

         Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Small and 
     Disadvantaged Business Utilization, $1,222,000.

                  Office of Intelligence and Security

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Intelligence and 
     Security, $1,454,000.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Information Officer, $5,000,000.

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy and 
                             Intermodalism

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Transportation Policy and Intermodalism, 
     $3,781,000.

                         Office of Civil Rights

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights, 
     $7,742,000.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

       For necessary expenses for conducting transportation 
     planning, research, systems development, development 
     activities, and making grants, to remain available until 
     expended, $2,950,000.

              Transportation Administrative Service Center

       Necessary expenses for operating costs and capital outlays 
     of the Transportation Administrative Service Center, not to 
     exceed $157,965,000, shall be paid from appropriations made 
     available to the Department of Transportation: Provided, That 
     the preceding limitation shall not apply to activities 
     associated with departmental Year 2000 conversion activities: 
     Provided further, That such services shall be provided on a 
     competitive basis to entities within the Department of 
     Transportation: Provided further, That the above limitation 
     on operating expenses shall not apply to non-DOT entities: 
     Provided further, That no funds appropriated in this Act to 
     an agency of the Department shall be transferred to the 
     Transportation Administrative Service Center without the 
     approval of the agency modal administrator: Provided further, 
     That no assessments may be levied against any program, budget 
     activity, subactivity or project funded by this Act unless 
     notice of such assessments and the basis therefor are 
     presented to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and are approved by such Committees.

                   Minority Business Resource Center

       For the cost of direct loans, $1,500,000, as authorized by 
     49 U.S.C. 332: Provided, That such costs, including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, 
     That these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations 
     for the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed 
     $13,775,000. In addition, for administrative expenses to 
     carry out the direct loan program, $400,000.

                       Minority Business Outreach

       For necessary expenses of Minority Business Resource Center 
     outreach activities, $2,900,000, of which $2,635,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2001: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 332, these funds may be used for 
     business opportunities related to any mode of transportation.

                              COAST GUARD

                           Operating Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of 
     the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided for; purchase of not 
     to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for replacement only; 
     payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as 
     amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and section 229(b) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)); and recreation and 
     welfare; $2,791,000,000, of which $300,000,000 shall be 
     available for defense-related activities; and of which 
     $25,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability 
     Trust Fund: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in 
     this or any other Act shall be available for pay or 
     administrative expenses in connection with shipping 
     commissioners in the United States: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds provided in this Act shall be available for 
     expenses incurred for yacht documentation under 46 U.S.C. 
     12109, except to the extent fees are collected from yacht 
     owners and credited to this appropriation: Provided further, 
     That the Commandant shall reduce both military and civilian 
     employment levels for the purpose of complying with Executive 
     Order No. 12839: Provided further, That up to $615,000 in 
     user fees collected pursuant to section 1111 of Public Law 
     104-324 shall be credited to this appropriation as offsetting 
     collections in fiscal year 2000: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds in this Act shall be available for the Coast 
     Guard to plan, finalize, or implement any regulation that 
     would promulgate new maritime user fees not specifically 
     authorized by law after the date of enactment of this Act.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

       For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction, 
     renovation, and improvement of

[[Page H4764]]

     aids to navigation, shore facilities, vessels, and aircraft, 
     including equipment related thereto, $410,000,000, of which 
     $20,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability 
     Trust Fund; of which $205,560,000 shall be available to 
     acquire, repair, renovate or improve vessels, small boats and 
     related equipment, to remain available until September 30, 
     2004; $38,310,000 shall be available to acquire new aircraft 
     and increase aviation capability, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2002; $59,400,000 shall be available for other 
     equipment, to remain available until September 30, 2002; 
     $55,800,000 shall be available for shore facilities and aids 
     to navigation facilities, to remain available until September 
     30, 2002; and $50,930,000 shall be available for personnel 
     compensation and benefits and related costs, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2001: Provided, That the 
     Commandant may dispose of surplus real property by sale or 
     lease and the proceeds shall be credited to this 
     appropriation: Provided further, That upon initial submission 
     to the Congress of the fiscal year 2001 President's budget, 
     the Secretary of Transportation shall transmit to the 
     Congress a comprehensive capital investment plan for the 
     United States Coast Guard which includes funding for each 
     budget line item for fiscal years 2001 through 2005, with 
     total funding for each year of the plan constrained to the 
     funding targets for those years as estimated and approved by 
     the Office of Management and Budget.

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Coast Guard's 
     environmental compliance and restoration functions under 
     chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code, $18,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                         Alteration of Bridges

       For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of 
     obstructive bridges, $15,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                              Retired Pay

       For retired pay, including the payment of obligations 
     therefor otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for 
     this purpose, and payments under the Retired Serviceman's 
     Family Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, and for 
     payments for medical care of retired personnel and their 
     dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C. 
     ch. 55), $721,000,000.

                            Reserve Training


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For all necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as 
     authorized by law; maintenance and operation of facilities; 
     and supplies, equipment, and services; $72,000,000: Provided, 
     That no more than $23,000,000 of funds made available under 
     this heading may be transferred to Coast Guard ``Operating 
     expenses'' or otherwise made available to reimburse the Coast 
     Guard for financial support of the Coast Guard Reserve: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act may be 
     used by the Coast Guard to assess direct charges on the Coast 
     Guard Reserves for items or activities which were not so 
     charged during fiscal year 1997.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     applied scientific research, development, test, and 
     evaluation; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and operation 
     of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law, 
     $21,039,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability 
     Trust Fund: Provided, That there may be credited to and used 
     for the purposes of this appropriation funds received from 
     State and local governments, other public authorities, 
     private sources, and foreign countries, for expenses incurred 
     for research, development, testing, and evaluation.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

                               Operations


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for necessary 
     expenses of the Federal Aviation Administration, not 
     otherwise provided for, including operations and research 
     activities related to commercial space transportation, 
     administrative expenses for research and development, 
     establishment of air navigation facilities, the operation 
     (including leasing) and maintenance of aircraft, subsidizing 
     the cost of aeronautical charts and maps sold to the public, 
     and carrying out the provisions of subchapter I of chapter 
     471 of title 49, United States Code, or other provisions of 
     law authorizing the obligation of funds for similar programs 
     of airport and airway development or improvement, lease or 
     purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, in 
     addition to amounts made available by Public Law 104-264, 
     $5,925,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act 
     shall be available for the Federal Aviation Administration to 
     plan, finalize, or implement any regulation that would 
     promulgate new aviation user fees not specifically authorized 
     by law after the date of enactment of this Act: Provided 
     further, That there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received from States, counties, municipalities, foreign 
     authorities, other public authorities, and private sources, 
     for expenses incurred in the provision of agency services, 
     including receipts for the maintenance and operation of air 
     navigation facilities, and for issuance, renewal or 
     modification of certificates, including airman, aircraft, and 
     repair station certificates, or for tests related thereto, or 
     for processing major repair or alteration forms: Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, 
     $5,000,000 shall be for the contract tower cost-sharing 
     program and $600,000 shall be for the Centennial of Flight 
     Commission: Provided further, That funds may be used to enter 
     into a grant agreement with a nonprofit standard-setting 
     organization to assist in the development of aviation safety 
     standards: Provided further, That none of the funds in this 
     Act shall be available for new applicants for the second 
     career training program: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds in this Act shall be available for paying premium pay 
     under 5 U.S.C. 5546(a) to any Federal Aviation Administration 
     employee unless such employee actually performed work during 
     the time corresponding to such premium pay: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds in this Act may be obligated or 
     expended to operate a manned auxiliary flight service station 
     in the contiguous United States: Provided further, That no 
     more than $28,600,000 of funds appropriated to the Federal 
     Aviation Administration in this Act may be used for 
     activities conducted by, or coordinated through, the 
     Transportation Administrative Service Center: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds in this Act for aeronautical 
     charting and cartography are available for activities 
     conducted by, or coordinated through, the Transportation 
     Administrative Service Center: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds in this Act may be used for the Federal Aviation 
     Administration to enter into a multiyear lease greater than 
     five years in length or greater than $100,000,000 in value 
     unless such lease is specifically authorized by the Congress 
     and appropriations have been provided to fully cover the 
     Federal Government's contingent liabilities: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds in this Act may be used for 
     the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to sign a lease for 
     satellite services related to the global positioning system 
     (GPS) wide area augmentation system until the administrator 
     of the FAA certifies in writing to the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations that FAA has conducted a lease 
     versus buy analysis which indicates that such lease will 
     result in the lowest overall cost to the agency.

                              {time}  1200


                            Points of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order against the 
phrase ``to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund'' on page 
11, line 8, through page 11, line 9 on the grounds that this is 
legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of Rule 
XXI of the Rules of the House.
  This provision is legislation on an appropriations bill because it 
provides funding for FAA operations solely from the Airport and Airway 
Trust Fund. Funding the program entirely out of the Trust Fund has the 
effect of changing existing law, which precludes funding from the Trust 
Fund in a fiscal year unless a general fund component has been included 
and, therefore, constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill.
  My point of order would strike the provision which makes the source 
of funding for FAA operations, the Airport and Aviation Trust Fund, but 
leaves the overall funding level for FAA operations in place. This 
would have the effect of making all funding provided for FAA operations 
from the General Fund.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to strongly emphasize that it is not my 
intention that all FAA operations funding should come from the general 
fund. My goal is that the FAA operations funding should be from both 
the Trust Fund and the General Fund at levels consistent with the 
levels determined by the House last week in AIR 21. There, the House 
overwhelmingly, by a vote of 316-to-110, and I might add with 67 
percent of the Republicans voting in favor of it, passed the bill which 
provided a general fund component for FAA operations. By contrast, the 
appropriations bill being considered today provides no general fund 
component at all, thereby ignoring the overwhelming will of the House 
just last week.
  However, I would certainly acknowledge that it ultimately would be 
irresponsible to eliminate all funding for FAA operations, which would 
mean no funding for important services such as flight safety inspectors 
and the air traffic control system.
  I had intended to cure this problem of having all FAA operation 
funding coming from the general fund by offering an amendment to 
restore the levels of Trust Fund and General Fund spending for FAA 
operations to the levels

[[Page H4765]]

that were overwhelmingly approved by this House last week in AIR 21. 
Unfortunately, my friends on the Appropriations Committee objected to 
making this amendment in order, even though the House had 
overwhelmingly expressed its will just last week.
  I regret having to take this action, and I still would be amenable to 
agreeing on an amendment that would restore the balance between General 
Fund spending and Trust Fund spending, if my friends on the 
Appropriations Committee would be interested in doing this. I again 
emphasize, it is not my intention to have to do this, I regret having 
to do it. I had an amendment to cure it which was not made in order by 
the Committee on Rules, and I regret that as well.
  So it leaves me no recourse but to object on this point of order.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against provisions 
of the bill and would request that the point of order that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) just made be expanded to 
include starting on page 10, line 17 and include through page 13, line 
13.
  The Federal Aviation Administration operations are unauthorized. They 
have never been authorized by this Congress and, therefore, are in 
violation of clause 2, rule XXI prohibiting the expenditure of funds 
for programs not authorized by law.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other Member who wishes to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is then prepared to rule on the points of 
order.
  The language identified by the point of order provides that the 
amendment appropriated in the pending paragraph be derived from the 
Airport and Airway Trust Fund. In the absence of any provision of 
existing law to support the inclusion of that language in a general 
appropriation bill, the language constitutes legislation in violation 
of clause 2 of Rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.
  In response to the point of order of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn), the entire paragraph from line 17 on page 10 through line 13 
on page 13 is stricken from the bill unauthorized.
  Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        Facilities and Equipment


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for necessary 
     expenses, not otherwise provided for, for acquisition, 
     establishment, and improvement by contract or purchase, and 
     hire of air navigation and experimental facilities and 
     equipment as authorized under part A of subtitle VII of title 
     49, United States Code, including initial acquisition of 
     necessary sites by lease or grant; engineering and service 
     testing, including construction of test facilities and 
     acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant; and 
     construction and furnishing of quarters and related 
     accommodations for officers and employees of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration stationed at remote localities where 
     such accommodations are not available; and the purchase, 
     lease, or transfer of aircraft from funds available under 
     this head; to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust 
     Fund, $2,200,000,000, of which $1,917,000,000 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2002, and of which $283,000,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2000: Provided, 
     That there may be credited to this appropriation funds 
     received from States, counties, municipalities, other public 
     authorities, and private sources, for expenses incurred in 
     the establishment and modernization of air navigation 
     facilities: Provided further, That upon initial submission to 
     the Congress of the fiscal year 2001 President's budget, the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall transmit to the Congress a 
     comprehensive capital investment plan for the Federal 
     Aviation Administration which includes funding for each 
     budget line item for fiscal years 2001 through 2005, with 
     total funding for each year of the plan constrained to the 
     funding targets for those years as estimated and approved by 
     the Office of Management and Budget: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds in this Act may be used for the Federal 
     Aviation Administration to enter into a capital lease 
     agreement unless appropriations have been provided to fully 
     cover the Federal Government's contingent liabilities at the 
     time the lease agreement is signed.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against the 
phrase ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 13, line 
16, on the grounds that it is legislation on an appropriations bill and 
violates clause 2 of Rule XXI of the Rules of the House.
  This phrase has long been recognized as legislative in nature and has 
the effect of waiving all other legislative constraints on the 
provision of funds for FAA facilities and equipment.
  I would emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that there are approximately 35 
legislative provisions in this appropriations bill. We were not 
consulted on any of them. Had we been, we might have been able to work 
out many of these points. Nevertheless, we will not be objecting to a 
majority of these legislative provisions, even though we were not 
consulted on them. Indeed, had we been consulted, I believe we could 
have worked out many of them.
  So I insist upon my point of order on this particular matter at this 
time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and the 
described language is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Research, Engineering, and Development


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for necessary 
     expenses, not otherwise provided for, for research, 
     engineering, and development, as authorized under part A of 
     subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, including 
     construction of experimental facilities and acquisition of 
     necessary sites by lease or grant, $173,000,000, to be 
     derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and to remain 
     available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That there may 
     be credited to this appropriation funds received from States, 
     counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and 
     private sources, for expenses incurred for research, 
     engineering, and development.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for liquidation 
     of obligations incurred for grants-in-aid for airport 
     planning and development, and for noise compatibility 
     planning and programs as authorized under subchapter I of 
     chapter 471 and subchapter I of chapter 475 of title 49, 
     United States Code, and under other law authorizing such 
     obligations, $1,867,000,000, to be derived from the Airport 
     and Airway Trust Fund and to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for the planning or execution of programs the 
     obligations for which are in excess of $2,250,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2000 for grants-in-aid for airport planning and 
     development, and noise compatibility planning and programs, 
     notwithstanding section 47117(h) of title 49, United States 
     Code.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SHUSTER: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against the 
phrase, ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 15, line 
20 on the grounds that it is legislation on an appropriations bill and 
violates clause 2 of Rule XXI of the rules of the House.
  This phrase has long been recognized as legislative in nature and has 
the effect of waiving all legislative constraints on the provision of 
liquidating cash from the airport and airways Trust Fund for aviation 
improvement program grants.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and the 
described language is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Some have argued that the TEA-21 highway and transit 
firewalls somehow have caused the appropriators to underfund other 
discretionary spending. This is false. The truth is that TEA-21 
provided more, not less, funds for remaining discretionary 
appropriations.
  First, all the increased spending for the highway and transit 
firewalls was fully reflected in the firewalls and fully offset by 
other saving provisions in TEA-21.
  Second, the current, overall discretionary spending caps were only 
adjusted downward by the amount of highway and transit spending 
provided in 1998.
  In other words, existing discretionary spending was not reduced by 
the amount of firewall

[[Page H4766]]

spending, but rather by the amount that the appropriations had 
previously provided for FY 1998.
  Third, there is no longer any pressure on the existing discretionary 
spending caps to fund increased highway trust fund spending.
  Without a doubt, if these new highway and transit firewalls had not 
been created, there would have been inordinate pressure within the 
existing caps to increase trust fund spending above FY 1998 levels.
  Fourth, because of differences in CBO's and OMB's scoring of the 
discretionary cap adjustments an extra $900 million of outlays was 
added to the Appropriations Committee's 302 allocation for FY 1999.
  Over the next five years, the effect of this adjustment is between $4 
and $5 billion.
  The fact is that TEA-21 made more funds available for remaining 
discretionary programs. If certain non-firewall transportation programs 
remain underfunded, the cause is not TEA-21, but rather decisions by 
the appropriators to spend the money elsewhere.
  Finally, the argument that other transportation programs are 
underfunded because the appropriators cannot reduce firewalled spending 
to increase other, general fund programs has already been rejected by 
the Congress and the President.
  The sole purpose of the firewalls--which I remain my colleagues was a 
compromise from the House position of taking the highway trust fund 
off-budget--was to guarantee that future gasoline taxes are spent for 
their intended purposes.
  TEA-21 settled for once and for all that this Congress will no longer 
continue the charade of masking the size of general fund spending 
through raiding the Highway Trust Fund.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Florida.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida:
       Page 16, after line 8, insert the following:

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                 (rescission of contract authorization)

       Of the obligated balances authorized under section 48103 of 
     title 49, United States Code, $300,000,000 are rescinded.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that is 
authorized by the rule and it is an amendment to reduce the unobligated 
balances in the FAA airport improvement program by $300 million. 
Because of a limitation on obligations, most of these funds would not 
be obligated over the next year, so we estimate that the impact on the 
program will be relatively minor.
  The obligation limitation in the bill for fiscal year 2000 will 
remain at $2.25 billion, which we believe will provide adequately for 
our Nation's airports.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a good bill, and it has been worked out by 
the subcommittee and the full committee to bring to the floor under a 
pretty good bipartisan agreement. But we were able to reduce this $300 
million without having a severe impact on the programs.
  Now, this bill, because of the T-21 program, has been stripped of a 
lot of its ability to fund other transportation projects. In this bill, 
some of those other transportation projects are Amtrak, which is funded 
at only $570 million, but the United States Coast Guard, which was 
funded at approximately $4 billion.
  Now, in an attempt to reduce the overall cost of this bill, we could 
have gone to Amtrak. But to arrive at a number that we thought we 
should arrive at, we would have to basically wipe out Amtrak, and I do 
not think that most of the Members of the House want to do that.
  In addition, we could go deeply into the Coast Guard budget, but the 
Coast Guard budget is already inadequate, and it is recognized by this 
bill that it is inadequate by assuming that part of the Coast Guard 
funding will be taken up by another subcommittee.
  Now, that has happened in the past, and we have done that, and we 
have done it fairly successfully. But what the Members need to know is 
that the Coast Guard as it went to war in Kosovo, and regardless of 
where that war stands today, the Coast Guard went to war. They were 
there. They sent three ships. They did not get any extra money in the 
supplemental that we provided for the other services, except to bring 
their pay raise situation into line with the other uniformed military 
services.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to be cutting into the Coast Guard's 
ability to do search and rescue missions. We cannot afford to cut into 
the Coast Guard's ability to do drug interdiction. We cannot afford to 
cut into the Coast Guard's ability to do port security and other 
responsibilities they have with seaports, not only in the United 
States, but in other parts of the world. So in order to get to the 
level that we thought was more acceptable to the House, we offer this 
amendment, $300 million. And the $300 million is just coming out of 
funds that are not going to be obligated over the next year anyway for 
the most part.
  So I would suggest to my colleagues that this is a good amendment. 
This makes this good bill even better, and I would hope that the 
Members would be willing to accept this amendment and move on to 
further consideration of the bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would agree with my friend that this is a good bill; 
while I do not think anybody would agree with every sentence in it, I 
agree it is a good bill. I support the bill.
  Further, I would say that my good friend, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) and his people did consult with us on this particular 
amendment and we agree with him, even though this is legislation on an 
appropriations bill, we do agree with him on this, and so we support 
him in this effort.
  I also must add that with regard to T-21, T-21 took absolutely no 
money from Amtrak. T-21 took absolutely no money from the Coast Guard. 
T-21 funding was all offset, even the general portion part of it. So I 
would respectfully say it is a red herring to talk in terms of T-21 
being a culprit in terms of causing limited funding for other 
provisions.
  That having been said as an aside, I come back to the main issue here 
which is the amendment which is before us. I thank the gentleman for 
consulting with us on this amendment. We agree with him, and we support 
his amendment.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is one of these amendments and one of these 
proposals we seem to have seen regularly this session, like we had on 
the emergency supplemental. It is a pretend that we are cutting when in 
fact we are not.
  The amendment really does not do any damage to the bill, because it 
does not cut any money that we were planning to spend in the year 2000. 
It does not provide any outlay savings. It does not complicate the AIP 
program through August 6. I assume that program will eventually be 
extended, at which point new contract authority will be given to fund 
it throughout the balance of the fiscal year.
  So it is one of these amendments, if it makes someone feel good, I 
guess that is a plus. But it is also one of our pretend schemes which 
really is not doing anything.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill was developed by an appropriations 
subcommittee in an attempt to represent all of the elements of the 
House. After months of hearings and weeks of negotiations, that 
subcommittee was able to produce a bipartisan product. Nobody got what 
they wanted, but it was a reasonable compromise.
  Now, once again, we are faced with the fact that the chairman of the 
committee has been forced to unilaterally attempt to alter a bill which 
had been put together originally in a bipartisan manner.
  We have seen the chairman come to the floor and amend the agriculture 
bill. We have seen the chairman come to the floor and amend the 
legislative branch bill. In his defense, he is not doing that because 
he wants to start a fight. He has done it because he has been 
instructed, apparently by his leadership, to change the funding level 
in these bills in order to satisfy a hardline element within the caucus 
of the majority party.
  They have a perfect right to do that if they want, but I think we 
need to really lay out what the reality is. We are being asked to 
believe that somehow, because of the tiny cut that was made in the 
legislative appropriations bill and the tiny cut that was made in the 
agriculture bill and now the tiny

[[Page H4767]]

cut which is being offered in this bill, that somehow some progress is 
being made by this Congress in reaching or in producing appropriation 
bills which will be passable and signable by the President.
  In fact, that is not the case at all. This chart shows what I mean. 
Because the majority party has made a decision to increase the military 
budget by about $19 billion, the fact is that they have produced cuts 
on the domestic side of the ledger in their 302 allocations, as they 
are known in the budget. They have produced cuts which total almost $40 
billion below last year's budget, adjusted for inflation.
  We are being asked to believe that these bills are going to be made 
passable by the tiny cuts that were made in the legislative branch, the 
agriculture branch, and now this bill today, when in fact if we total 
up all the cuts made so far by the majority party in response to the 
demands of the hardliners and their caucus, this is all that we fill up 
the thermometer with.
  As we can see, the amount of money represented by those cuts is so 
small it is virtually impossible to see unless one is standing next to 
it, as I am. So we are being asked to believe that this amendment today 
will actually contribute in any meaningful way to savings, and in fact 
it does not.
  The fact is that the majority party and elements in this caucus can 
continue to deny that they are in denial if they want, but the fact is 
that in order to be able to pass all 13 appropriation bills, they are 
going to have to do something besides pretending that these tiny little 
cuts will fill up this bottle, in the end.
  The fact is that this House is not going to vote for a labor-health-
education appropriation bill which is $10 to $12 billion below last 
year's level in terms of current services. This House is not going to 
vote for funding for EPA and HUD and veterans benefits. They are not 
going to vote for a bill which takes those programs down $6 billion to 
$8 billion below current services.
  So we are going to continue to come out here with these tiny little 
amendments pretending that some progress is being made, when in fact 
the gap between the rhetoric and the reality is the gap between the top 
level of this little amount of red in the bottom of the thermometer up 
to the top of the thermometer.
  When the Majority gets real, when you get into this range, let us 
know. Until then, there is not a whole lot that the minority can do to 
help the other side.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that the American public 
know that every Member of this House voted for a budget resolution that 
would not touch social security money. Only two Members of this House 
voted for the President's budget, which said that we have to spend some 
social security money.
  Having said that, to me actually the savings thus far are $170 
million. To most people in Oklahoma and the rest of the country, $170 
million saved is a lot of money. I know it is not here in Washington, 
but to those who are actually paying the taxes, $170 million is a lot 
of money.
  I think we as a House have to tell the American public either we 
meant what we said when we voted on our respective budgets that we 
would not spend social security money, and I would note for the Record 
that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) did in fact vote for his 
party's budget and did not vote for the President's budget; that in 
fact, then, if Members say something, i.e., we are not going to spend 
social security money, regardless of how hard it is and regardless of 
how tough a job it is, that we ought to make every effort in good faith 
to try to do that.
  The gentleman makes some real points. I would tend to agree with him. 
I do not think we will pass a bill in Labor-HHS with those kinds of 
cuts. But I think it is entirely possible that we can pass a Labor-HHS 
bill that has $700 million or $800 million or $900 million less because 
we are obligated to do that, recognizing that any money that we spend 
above our level target of $438 billion will in fact come from social 
security money.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has great experience in the 
appropriations process. I understand that. But I also understand that 
it is time for us to do what we say we are going to do. That means 
honoring our commitment and making sure that when we vote for 
something, we mean it.
  It is fine if we all want to disavow the votes on the budgets, the 
respective votes on the budgets. I do not intend to do that. Yes, I am 
part of that portion of the Republican conference that, number one, 
believes that the government is too big; number two, believes if we 
tell people we are not going to spend social security, we should not do 
it, and which should die trying not to spend their money. We can do 
that.
  This amendment that is before us will delay the expenditure of money. 
No, it does not save any money right now, but it will delay the 
spending of the money. In Washington, if we can delay spending money, 
we may be able to get better at not spending it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman. Just 
three points, Mr. Chairman.
  First, I am not from Minnesota. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Sabo) is from Minnesota.
  Secondly, it was not this Member that voted for the Republican 
proposition to move $19 billion out of domestic funds into the military 
budget. That has nothing whatsoever to do with saving money for social 
security, it has a lot to do with priorities.
  Thirdly, I would simply make the point, the gentleman has misstated 
my votes. He has said that I had voted for the Democratic alternative 
on the budget. The fact is that when we voted, I took the well of the 
floor and I stated that I voted for that amendment only as a substitute 
for the Republican amendment, but that I would vote against both on 
final passage because I felt that neither reflected reality. I still 
feel that way.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the gentleman. I stand corrected.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with what the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) said and what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) said 
and just make one further comment on the chart of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  There is another number that should have been on there. That is the 
agreed-upon budget as established in 1997, which would be $17 billion 
below the lowest number that the chart of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) showed.
  Whether we like it or not, everybody has pretty much signed off on 
that number. That is the number we are working to, and not to the $25 
billion or the other.
  Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, there are three 
principles.
  One is that almost every Member of the House, and in one way or 
another every Member of the House, has cast a vote to not spend social 
security money.
  Number two, we do have a 1997 budget agreement that is law that the 
President has already said he is not going to follow, but that does not 
mean we should not.
  Number three, one of our obligations as Members of this body is to 
rebuild confidence in it, not to tear it down. If we say we are not 
going to touch social security money, then we ought to make the effort.
  Finally, I would say $170 million is not much. We have a long ways to 
go. But the assumption we are going to pass a bill that has $19 billion 
in increased defense spending, I do not think that is a true 
assumption.
  So I am willing to work with anybody that will help me fund Labor-HHS 
adequately.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Coburn was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to work with anyone that will

[[Page H4768]]

help us fund veterans affairs appropriately, that will help us make 
appropriate judgments in all the other areas where we are worried about 
the balances and the targets that have been set.
  One of the ways to do that is to make sure we do not spend money in 
these early bills that we do not have to. If we can take $300 million 
or $570 million, which is my goal for this bill, and move towards it, 
that is a half a billion.
  In Oklahoma half a billion dollars is a lot of money.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Coburn was 
allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that the idea that somehow 
social security is going to be saved because out of a gap of anywhere 
from $25 billion to $35 billion these cuts are going to save the grand 
total of almost $300 million is patently preposterous. That does not 
begin to save either social security or provide a rational balance of 
priorities within accounts in the appropriation bill.
  So I would simply suggest this debate has nothing to do with social 
security. It has a whole lot to do with spending priorities.
  I would also add, in disagreement with the gentleman from Florida, 
not all of us did sign onto that budget deal 2 years ago. At the time I 
called it a giant ``Public Fib,'' and I still regard it as being such, 
as the numbers in that chart demonstrate.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, just a couple of points. Mr. Chairman, with regard to 
this amendment, this $300 million reduction is a cut in budget 
authority currently available to the FAA.
  Just a few minutes ago, or now probably a half-hour ago, the CBO 
reaffirmed to the staff that this bill will result in savings. 
Apparently others have raised technical points over the last days as to 
what CBO has considered but CBO does not find these agreements 
convincing.
  Certainly this amendment is less painful, as the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) than cuts to the Coast Guard drug interdiction, 
which both sides want; the FAA, and other programs. This is precisely 
the responsible action to take.
  Let me just say one other thing that I just thought of when I was 
listening to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). I think this is 
all going to work out.
  I did not support the amendments that the gentleman offered to the 
agriculture bill, but I think I would be less than honest if I did not 
say that the gentleman has been courageous and has come here to propose 
and to argue for his point of view. Everyone ought to have the ability 
to come here and make their case. He has made his case I think in a 
fair, fair way. I did not vote that way. But I think this process has 
come together. I think he has actually been helpful on this bill.
  I think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has been very, very 
faithful in trying to keep to the numbers. I think it will come 
together with the other side of the aisle whereby we can pass these 
appropriation bills, spending as little as possible, with integrity and 
faithfulness to the American people, recognizing the difference in 
views that we may have. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is 
committed to doing that just as the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn) is.

                              {time}  1230

  It takes a lot of courage to kind of do what the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has done. Although I have not, and he knows that 
I have not, agreed, there is a great quote, and I do not have it with 
me, but I use it in speeches that I give. It was a quote by Bobby 
Kennedy that he gave in South Africa to a group of students in 1966. It 
is a profound speech that moves me every time that I read it, where he 
talks about moral courage and timidity and to brave the censure of your 
colleagues. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has done that. 
Again, I feel an obligation to say I did not vote for those amendments, 
but one has to respect that, and one has to admire that.
  I respect the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) in what he is doing. 
I hope that we can work together to pass bills in a way in which we all 
can be proud.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses

       Necessary expenses for administration and operation of the 
     Federal Highway Administration, not to exceed $356,380,000, 
     shall be paid in accordance with law from appropriations made 
     available by this Act to the Federal Highway Administration 
     together with advances and reimbursements received by the 
     Federal Highway Administration: Provided, That $70,484,000 
     shall be available to carry out the functions and operations 
     of the office of motor carriers.

                 Limitation on Transportation Research

       Necessary expenses for transportation research of the 
     Federal Highway Administration, not to exceed $422,450,000 
     shall be paid in accordance with law from appropriations made 
     available by this Act to the Federal Highway Administration: 
     Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to any 
     authority previously made available for obligation.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs, the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $27,701,350,000 for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal 
     year 2000.

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) for the purpose of 
a colloquy.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Sabo) for yielding to me, and I thank him for extending this courtesy.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an unusual situation in Maine where the weight 
limit on trucks that are traveling through Maine is much lower than it 
is in the surrounding States and in the provinces in Canada.
  Presently in the surrounding States, in New Hampshire, New York, and 
Massachusetts and in Eastern Canada and the provinces is in excess of 
100,000 pound trucks. In the State of Maine, because of the Federal 
Highway Administration and a weight limitation of 80,000 pounds on the 
interstate system, it has forced the State of Maine trucks and the 
trucks coming in from the surrounding communities to have to go on 
State and local roads.
  This has created a tremendous safety problem on our roads. We have 
had deaths and tragedies and accidents because of these heavy trucks 
being forced to use State and local roads because of these inequities 
and those exemptions that have been given around Maine and through the 
provinces.
  I solicit the help and want to work together with the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) to see if we can look into this and try to resolve 
this in a fair and equitable manner.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maine for his 
presentation. It is a new problem, and we will try and work with the 
gentleman in the future.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for carrying 
     out the provisions of title 23, U.S.C., that are attributable 
     to Federal-aid highways, including the National Scenic and 
     Recreational Highway as authorized by 23 U.S.C. 148, not 
     otherwise provided, including reimbursement for sums expended 
     pursuant to the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 308, $26,125,000,000 
     or so much thereof as may be available in and derived from 
     the Highway Trust Fund, to remain available until expended.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order against the 
phrase ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 17, line 
14 on the grounds that it is legislation on an appropriations bill and 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House.
  This phrase has long been recognized as legislative in nature and has 
the effect of waiving all legislative constraints on the provisions of 
liquidating cash from the highway trust

[[Page H4769]]

fund for the Federal Aid Highway Program.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and the 
described language is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      Motor Carrier Safety Grants


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of 
     obligations incurred in carrying out 49 U.S.C. 31102, 
     $105,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund and 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That none of 
     the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $105,000,000 for ``Motor Carrier 
     Safety Grants''.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order against the 
phrase ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' at page 18, line 
4 on the same grounds that I have previously stated.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and the 
described language is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                        Operations and Research

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary, with respect to traffic and highway safety under 
     chapter 301 of title 49, U.S.C., and part C of subtitle VI of 
     title 49, U.S.C., $87,400,000 of which $62,928,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That 
     none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated 
     or expended to plan, finalize, or implement any rulemaking to 
     add to section 575.104 of title 49 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations any requirement pertaining to a grading standard 
     that is different from the three grading standards 
     (treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance) already in 
     effect.

                        Operations and Research


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of 
     obligations incurred in carrying out the provisions of 23 
     U.S.C. 403, to remain available until expended, $72,000,000, 
     to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund: Provided, That 
     none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     planning or execution of programs the total obligations for 
     which, in fiscal year 2000 are in excess of $72,000,000 for 
     programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 403.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order against the 
phrase ``notwithstanding any provision of law'' on page 19, line 5 on 
the same grounds that I have previously stated.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and the 
described language is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        National Driver Register


                          (highway trust fund)

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary with respect to the National Driver Register under 
     chapter 303 of title 49, United States Code, $2,000,000, to 
     be derived from the Highway Trust Fund and to remain 
     available until expended.

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of 
     obligations incurred in carrying out the provisions of 23 
     U.S.C. 402, 405, 410, and 411, to remain available until 
     expended, $206,800,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust 
     Fund: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for the planning or execution of programs the total 
     obligations for which, in fiscal year 2000, are in excess of 
     $206,800,000 for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402, 
     405, 410, and 411, of which $152,800,000 shall be for 
     ``Highway Safety Programs'' under 23 U.S.C. 402, $10,000,000 
     shall be for ``Occupant Protection Incentive Grants'' under 
     23 U.S.C. 405, $36,000,000 shall be for ``Alcohol-Impaired 
     Driving Countermeasures Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 410, 
     $8,000,000 shall be for the ``State Highway Safety Data 
     Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 411: Provided further, That none of 
     these funds shall be used for construction, rehabilitation, 
     or remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures 
     for State, local, or private buildings or structures: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $7,500,000 of the funds 
     made available for section 402, not to exceed $500,000 of the 
     funds made available for section 405, not to exceed 
     $1,750,000 of the funds made available for section 410, and 
     not to exceed $223,000 of the funds made available for 
     section 411 shall be available to NHTSA for administering 
     highway safety grants under Chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C.: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000 of the funds 
     made available for section 410 ``Alcohol-Impaired Driving 
     Countermeasures Grants'' shall be available for technical 
     assistance to the States.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order against the 
phrase ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 19, line 
25 on the same grounds that I have previously stated.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and the 
described language is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

                         Safety and Operations

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, $94,448,000, of 
     which $6,800,000 shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That, as part of the Washington Union Station 
     transaction in which the Secretary assumed the first deed of 
     trust on the property and, where the Union Station 
     Redevelopment Corporation or any successor is obligated to 
     make payments on such deed of trust on the Secretary's 
     behalf, including payments on and after September 30, 1988, 
     the Secretary is authorized to receive such payments directly 
     from the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, credit them 
     to the appropriation charged for the first deed of trust, and 
     make payments on the first deed of trust with those funds: 
     Provided further, That such additional sums as may be 
     necessary for payment on the first deed of trust may be 
     advanced by the Administrator from unobligated balances 
     available to the Federal Railroad Administration, to be 
     reimbursed from payments received from the Union Station 
     Redevelopment Corporation.

                   Railroad Research and Development

       For necessary expenses for railroad research and 
     development, $21,300,000, to remain available until expended.

            Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program

       The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to issue to 
     the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other obligations 
     pursuant to section 512 of the Railroad Revitalization and 
     Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-210), as 
     amended, in such amounts and at such times as may be 
     necessary to pay any amounts required pursuant to the 
     guarantee of the principal amount of obligations under 
     sections 511 through 513 of such Act, such authority to exist 
     as long as any such guaranteed obligation is outstanding: 
     Provided, That pursuant to section 502 of such Act, as 
     amended, no new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments 
     shall be made using Federal funds for the credit risk premium 
     during fiscal year 2000.

                    Next Generation High-Speed Rail

       For necessary expenses for the Next Generation High-Speed 
     Rail program as authorized under 49 United States Code 
     sections 26101 and 26102, $22,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                     Rhode Island Rail Development

       For the costs associated with construction of a third track 
     on the Northeast Corridor between Davisville and Central 
     Falls, Rhode Island, with sufficient clearance to accommodate 
     double stack freight cars, $10,000,000, to be matched by the 
     State of Rhode Island or its designee on a dollar-for-dollar 
     basis and to remain available until expended.

     Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation

       For necessary expenses of capital improvements of the 
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation as authorized by 49 
     U.S.C. 24104(a), $570,976,000 to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the Secretary shall not obligate 
     more than $228,400,000 prior to September 30, 2000.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                        Administrative Expenses

       For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal 
     Transit Administration's programs authorized by chapter 53 of 
     title 49, United States Code, $12,000,000: Provided, That no 
     more than $60,000,000 of budget authority shall be available 
     for these purposes: Provided further, That of the funds in 
     this Act available for the execution of contracts under 
     section 5327(c) of title 49, United States Code, $800,000 
     shall be transferred to the Department of Transportation 
     Inspector General for costs associated with the audit and 
     review of new fixed guideway systems.

                             Formula Grants

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5308, 
     5310, 5311, 5327, and section 3038 of Public Law 105-178, 
     $619,600,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That no more than $3,098,000,000 of budget authority shall be 
     available for these purposes.

                   University Transportation Research

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5505, 
     $1,200,000, to remain available

[[Page H4770]]

     until expended: Provided, That no more than $6,000,000 of 
     budget authority shall be available for these purposes.

                     Transit Planning and Research

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5303, 5304, 
     5305, 5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a), 5314, 5315, and 5322, 
     $21,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That no more than $107,000,000 of budget authority shall be 
     available for these purposes: Provided further, That 
     $5,250,000 is available to provide rural transportation 
     assistance (49 U.S.C. 5311(b)(2)); $4,000,000 is available to 
     carry out programs under the National Transit Institute (49 
     U.S.C. 5315); $8,250,000 is available to carry out transit 
     cooperative research programs (49 U.S.C. 5313(a)); 
     $49,632,000 is available for metropolitan planning (49 U.S.C. 
     5303, 5304, and 5305); $10,368,000 is available for state 
     planning (49 U.S.C. 5313(b)); and $29,500,000 is available 
     for the national planning and research program (49 U.S.C. 
     5314).

                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of 
     obligations incurred in carrying out 49 U.S.C. 5303-5308, 
     5310-5315, 5317(b), 5322, 5327, 5334, 5505, and sections 3037 
     and 3038 of Public Law 105-178, $4,638,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, and to be derived from the Mass 
     Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund: Provided, That 
     $2,478,400,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit 
     Administration's formula grants account: Provided further, 
     That $86,000,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit 
     Administration's transit planning and research account: 
     Provided further, That $48,000,000 shall be paid to the 
     Federal Transit Administration's administrative expenses 
     account: Provided further, That $4,800,000 shall be paid to 
     the Federal Transit Administration's university 
     transportation research account: Provided further, That 
     $60,000,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit 
     Administration's job access and reverse commute grants 
     program: Provided further, That $1,960,800,000 shall be paid 
     to the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment 
     Grants account.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order against the 
phrase ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 25, line 
9 on the same grounds that I have previously stated.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and the 
described language is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       Capital Investment Grants

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308, 5309, 
     5318, and 5327, $490,200,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That no more than $2,451,000,000 of 
     budget authority shall be available for these purposes: 
     Provided further, That there shall be available for fixed 
     guideway modernization, $980,400,000; there shall be 
     available for the replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase 
     of buses and related equipment and the construction of bus-
     related facilities, $490,200,000; and there shall be 
     available for new fixed guideway systems, $980,400,000, to be 
     available as follows:
       $10,400,000 for Alaska or Hawaii ferry projects;
       $45,142,000 for the Atlanta, Georgia, North line extension 
     project;
       $5,000,000 for the Baltimore central LRT double track 
     project;
       $4,000,000 for the Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail 
     project;
       $3,000,000 for the Charlotte, North Carolina, north-south 
     corridor transitway project;
       $25,000,000 for the Chicago METRA commuter rail project;
       $2,000,000 for the Chicago Transit Authority Douglas branch 
     line project;
       $2,000,000 for the Chicago Transit Authority Ravenswood 
     branch line project;
       $2,000,000 for the Cincinnati northeast/northern Kentucky 
     corridor project;
       $2,000,000 for the Clark County, Nevada, fixed guideway 
     project;
       $1,000,000 for the Cleveland Euclid corridor improvement 
     project;
       $1,000,000 for the Colorado Roaring Fork Valley project;
       $35,000,000 for the Dallas north central light rail 
     extension project;
       $1,000,000 for the Dayton, Ohio, light rail study;
       $35,000,000 for the Denver Southwest corridor project;
       $25,000,000 for the Dulles corridor project;
       $12,000,000 for the Fort Lauderdale, Florida Tri-County 
     commuter rail project;
       $4,000,000 for the Houston advanced transit program;
       $52,770,000 for the Houston regional bus project;
       $1,000,000 for the Johnson County, Kansas, I-35 commuter 
     rail project;
       $1,000,000 for the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee rail extension 
     project;
       $4,000,000 for the Long Island Railroad East Side access 
     project;
       $5,000,000 for the Los Angeles Mid-City and East side 
     corridors projects;
       $50,000,000 for the Los Angeles North Hollywood extension 
     project;
       $1,000,000 for the Los Angeles-San Diego LOSSAN corridor 
     project;
       $703,000 for the MARC commuter rail project;
       $1,000,000 for the Massachusetts North Shore corridor 
     project;
       $5,000,000 for the Memphis, Tennessee, Medical Center rail 
     extension project;
       $3,000,000 for the Miami-Dade Transit east-west multimodal 
     corridor project;
       $3,000,000 for the Miami-Dade Transit North 27th corridor 
     project;
       $1,000,000 for the Nashville, Tennessee, commuter rail 
     project;
       $99,000,000 for the New Jersey Hudson Bergen project;
       $2,000,000 for the New Orleans Canal Street corridor 
     project;
       $6,000,000 for the Newark rail link MOS-1 project;
       $1,000,000 for the Norfolk-Virginia Beach corridor project;
       $4,000,000 for the Northern Indiana south shore commuter 
     rail project;
       $2,000,000 for the Oceanside-Escondido, California light 
     rail system;
       $5,000,000 for Olympic transportation infrastructure 
     investments: Provided, That these funds shall be allocated by 
     the Secretary based on the approved transportation management 
     plan for the Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympic Games: 
     Provided further, That none of these funds shall be made 
     available for the Salt Lake City west-east light rail 
     project, any segment thereof, or a downtown connector in Salt 
     Lake City, Utah;
       $1,000,000 for the Orange County, California, transitway 
     project;
       $20,000,000 for the Orlando Lynx light rail project (phase 
     1);
       $1,000,000 for the Philadelphia-Reading SETPA Schuylkill 
     Valley metro project;
       $7,000,000 for the Phoenix metropolitan area transit 
     project;
       $3,000,000 for the Pinellas County, Florida, mobility 
     initiative project;
       $11,062,000 for the Portland Westside light rail transit 
     project;
       $2,000,000 for the Puget Sound RTA Link light rail project;
       $12,000,000 for the Puget Sound RTA Sounder commuter rail 
     project;
       $12,000,000 for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle 
     transit project;
       $25,000,000 for the Sacramento south corridor LRT project;
       $1,000,000 for the San Bernardino, California Metrolink 
     project;
       $7,000,000 for the San Diego Mid Coast corridor project;
       $23,000,000 for the San Diego Mission Valley East light 
     rail transit project;
       $84,000,000 for the San Francisco BART extension to the 
     airport project;
       $20,000,000 for the San Jose Tasman West light rail 
     project;
       $82,000,000 for the San Juan Tren Urbano project;
       $53,962,000 for the South Boston piers transitway;
       $1,000,000 for the South DeKalb-Lindbergh, Georgia, 
     corridor project;
       $3,000,000 for the Spokane, Washington, South Valley 
     corridor light rail project;
       $3,000,000 for the St. Louis, Missouri, MetroLink cross 
     county corridor project;
       $50,000,000 for the St. Louis-St. Clair County MetroLink 
     light rail (phase II) extension project;
       $1,000,000 for the Tampa Bay regional rail project;
       $5,433,000 for the Twin Cities Transitways projects;
       $46,000,000 for the Twin Cities Transitways--Hiawatha 
     corridor project;
       $37,928,000 for the Utah north/south light rail project;
       $2,000,000 for the Virginia Railway Express Woodbridge 
     station improvements project;
       $1,000,000 for the West Trenton, New Jersey, rail project; 
     and
       $3,000,000 for the Whitehall terminal reconstruction 
     project.

                          Discretionary Grants


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of 
     previous obligations incurred in carrying out 49 U.S.C. 
     5338(b), $1,500,000,000, to remain available until expended 
     and to be derived from the Mass Transit Account of the 
     Highway Trust Fund.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order against the 
phrase ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 32, line 
8 on the same grounds that I have previously stated.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and the 
described language is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 3037 of the 
     Federal Transit Act of 1998, $15,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That no more than $75,000,000 of 
     budget authority shall be available for these purposes.

[[Page H4771]]

             SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

             Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

       The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds and borrowing authority available to the Corporation, 
     and in accord with law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out the 
     programs set forth in the Corporation's budget for the 
     current fiscal year.

                       Operations and Maintenance


                    (harbor maintenance trust fund)

       For necessary expenses for operations and maintenance of 
     those portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway operated and 
     maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
     Corporation, $12,042,000, to be derived from the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662.

              RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

                     Research and Special Programs

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Research and Special Programs Administration, $32,361,000, of 
     which $645,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety 
     Fund, and of which $3,704,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2002: Provided, That up to $1,200,000 in fees 
     collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) shall be deposited in the 
     general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts: Provided 
     further, That there may be credited to this appropriation, to 
     be available until expended, funds received from States, 
     counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and 
     private sources for expenses incurred for training, for 
     reports publication and dissemination, and for travel 
     expenses incurred in performance of hazardous materials 
     exemptions and approvals functions.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I do so 
for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Virginia (Chairman Wolf).
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman 
Wolf) is concerned, as we all are, with the effects of peanut allergies 
on individuals who fly on our Nation's airlines, as well as for other 
reasons.
  As the gentleman knows, included in the 1999 Omnibus Appropriations 
bill was language to ban the Department of Transportation from 
implementing peanut-free buffer zones on airlines without the 
Department first conducting a study on peanut allergies. In fact, in 
Fiscal Year 2000's Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration Appropriations bill, $300,000 was earmarked for the 
peanut industry to conduct research to find a vaccination for peanut 
allergies and eliminate the allergy that is contained in the peanut.
  I ask the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf), is it true that 
the language included in the omnibus bill was a change to permanent law 
and does not need to be addressed again this year?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. The language included in the 
omnibus bill is permanent law.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman from 
Virginia verify if a peanut allergy study has been conducted by the 
Department of Transportation as specified in the 1999 omnibus bill?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Transportation has yet to 
issue a report on their peanut allergy study.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) for his clarification in this matter and the leadership that he 
provides for this committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            Pipeline Safety


                         (pipeline safety fund)

                    (oil spill liability trust fund)

       For expenses necessary to conduct the functions of the 
     pipeline safety program, for grants-in-aid to carry out a 
     pipeline safety program, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 60107, 
     and to discharge the pipeline program responsibilities of the 
     Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $36,092,000, of which $5,494,000 
     shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2002; and of which 
     $30,598,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund, 
     of which $17,074,000 shall remain available until September 
     30, 2002: Provided, That in addition to amounts made 
     available from the Pipeline Safety Fund, $1,300,000 shall be 
     available for grants to States for the development and 
     establishment of one-call notification systems, emergency 
     notification, damage prevention, and public education 
     activities, and shall be derived from amounts previously 
     collected under 49 U.S.C. 60301.

                     Emergency Preparedness Grants


                     (emergency preparedness fund)

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5127(c), 
     $200,000, to be derived from the Emergency Preparedness Fund, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That 
     not more than $14,300,000 shall be made available for 
     obligation in fiscal year 2000 from amounts made available by 
     49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 5127(d): Provided further, That none of 
     the funds made available by 49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 5127(d) 
     shall be made available for obligation by individuals other 
     than the Secretary of Transportation, or his designee.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     to carry out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 
     1978, as amended, $44,840,000.

                      SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Surface Transportation Board, 
     including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $17,000,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     not to exceed $1,600,000 from fees established by the 
     Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board shall be 
     credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and 
     used for necessary and authorized expenses under this 
     heading: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated 
     from the general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar 
     basis as such offsetting collections are received during 
     fiscal year 2000, to result in a final appropriation from the 
     general fund estimated at no more than $15,400,000.

                                TITLE II

                            RELATED AGENCIES

       ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Architectural and 
     Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, as authorized by 
     section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 
     $4,633,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received for publications and training expenses.

                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Transportation 
     Safety Board, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
     aircraft; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at 
     rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate 
     equivalent to the rate for a GS-15; uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902) 
     $57,000,000, of which not to exceed $2,000 may be used for 
     official reception and representation expenses.

                               TITLE III

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS


                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 301. During the current fiscal year applicable 
     appropriations to the Department of Transportation shall be 
     available for maintenance and operation of aircraft; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; purchase of liability 
     insurance for motor vehicles operating in foreign countries 
     on official department business; and uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
       Sec. 302. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     2000 pay raises for programs funded in this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act or 
     previous appropriations Acts.
       Sec. 303. Funds appropriated under this Act for 
     expenditures by the Federal Aviation Administration shall be 
     available: (1) except as otherwise authorized by title VIII 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), for expenses of primary and secondary 
     schooling for dependents of Federal Aviation Administration 
     personnel stationed outside the continental United States at 
     costs for any given area not in excess of those of the 
     Department of Defense for the same area, when it is 
     determined by the Secretary that the schools, if any, 
     available in the locality are unable to provide adequately 
     for the education of such dependents; and (2) for 
     transportation of said dependents between schools serving the 
     area that they attend and their places of residence when the 
     Secretary, under such regulations as may be prescribed, 
     determines that such schools are not accessible by public 
     means of transportation on a regular basis.
       Sec. 304. Appropriations contained in this Act for the 
     Department of Transportation shall be available for services 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals 
     not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for an 
     Executive Level IV.
       Sec. 305. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     for salaries and expenses of more than 100 political and 
     Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation: 
     Provided, That none of the personnel covered by this 
     provision may be assigned on temporary detail outside the 
     Department of Transportation.
       Sec. 306. None of the funds in this Act shall be used for 
     the planning or execution of any

[[Page H4772]]

     program to pay the expenses of, or otherwise compensate, non-
     Federal parties intervening in regulatory or adjudicatory 
     proceedings funded in this Act.
       Sec. 307. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal 
     year, nor may any be transferred to other appropriations, 
     unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 308. The Secretary of Transportation may enter into 
     grants, cooperative agreements, and other transactions with 
     any person, agency, or instrumentality of the United States, 
     any unit of State or local government, any educational 
     institution, and any other entity in execution of the 
     Technology Reinvestment Project authorized under the Defense 
     Conversion, Reinvestment and Transition Assistance Act of 
     1992 and related legislation: Provided, That the authority 
     provided in this section may be exercised without regard to 
     section 3324 of title 31, United States Code.
       Sec. 309. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract 
     pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures 
     are a matter of public record and available for public 
     inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing 
     law, or under existing Executive order issued pursuant to 
     existing law.
       Sec. 310. The limitations on obligations for the programs 
     of the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any 
     authority under 49 U.S.C. 5338, previously made available for 
     obligation, or to any other authority previously made 
     available for obligation.
       Sec. 311. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
       Sec. 312. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to plan, finalize, or implement regulations that would 
     establish a vessel traffic safety fairway less than five 
     miles wide between the Santa Barbara Traffic Separation 
     Scheme and the San Francisco Traffic Separation Scheme.
       Sec. 313. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     airports may transfer, without consideration, to the Federal 
     Aviation Administration (FAA) instrument landing systems 
     (along with associated approach lighting equipment and runway 
     visual range equipment) which conform to FAA design and 
     performance specifications, the purchase of which was 
     assisted by a Federal airport-aid program, airport 
     development aid program or airport improvement program grant. 
     The FAA shall accept such equipment, which shall thereafter 
     be operated and maintained by the FAA in accordance with 
     agency criteria.
       Sec. 314. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to award a multiyear contract for production end items that: 
     (1) includes economic order quantity or long lead time 
     material procurement in excess of $10,000,000 in any one year 
     of the contract; (2) includes a cancellation charge greater 
     than $10,000,000 which at the time of obligation has not been 
     appropriated to the limits of the Government's liability; or 
     (3) includes a requirement that permits performance under the 
     contract during the second and subsequent years of the 
     contract without conditioning such performance upon the 
     appropriation of funds: Provided, That this limitation does 
     not apply to a contract in which the Federal Government 
     incurs no financial liability from not buying additional 
     systems, subsystems, or components beyond the basic contract 
     requirements.
       Sec. 315. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     except for fixed guideway modernization projects, funds made 
     available by this Act under ``Federal Transit Administration, 
     Capital investment grants'' for projects specified in this 
     Act or identified in reports accompanying this Act not 
     obligated by September 30, 2002, and other recoveries, shall 
     be made available for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
       Sec. 316. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     funds appropriated before October 1, 1999, under any section 
     of chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain 
     available for expenditure may be transferred to and 
     administered under the most recent appropriation heading for 
     any such section.
       Sec. 317. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     compensate in excess of 320 technical staff-years under the 
     federally funded research and development center contract 
     between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center 
     for Advanced Aviation Systems Development during fiscal year 
     2000.
       Sec. 318. Funds provided in this Act for the Transportation 
     Administrative Service Center (TASC) shall be reduced by 
     $10,000,000, which limits fiscal year 2000 TASC obligational 
     authority for elements of the Department of Transportation 
     funded in this Act to no more than $147,965,000: Provided, 
     That such reductions from the budget request shall be 
     allocated by the Department of Transportation to each 
     appropriations account in proportion to the amount included 
     in each account for the Transportation Administrative Service 
     Center.
       Sec. 319. Funds received by the Federal Highway 
     Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal 
     Railroad Administration from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources 
     for expenses incurred for training may be credited 
     respectively to the Federal Highway Administration's 
     ``Federal-Aid Highways'' account, the Federal Transit 
     Administration's ``Transit Planning and Research'' account, 
     and to the Federal Railroad Administration's ``Safety and 
     Operations'' account, except for State rail safety inspectors 
     participating in training pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20105.
       Sec. 320. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulations pursuant 
     to title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings 
     Act (49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.) prescribing corporate average 
     fuel economy standards for automobiles, as defined in such 
     title, in any model year that differs from standards 
     promulgated for such automobiles prior to enactment of this 
     section.
       Sec. 321. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received by 
     the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data 
     products, for necessary expenses incurred pursuant to 49 
     U.S.C. 111 may be credited to the Federal-aid highways 
     account for the purpose of reimbursing the Bureau for such 
     expenses: Provided, That such funds shall be subject to the 
     obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways and highway 
     safety construction.
       Sec. 322. None of the funds in this Act may be obligated or 
     expended for employee training which: (a) does not meet 
     identified needs for knowledge, skills and abilities bearing 
     directly upon the performance of official duties; (b) 
     contains elements likely to induce high levels of emotional 
     response or psychological stress in some participants; (c) 
     does not require prior employee notification of the content 
     and methods to be used in the training and written end of 
     course evaluations; (d) contains any methods or content 
     associated with religious or quasi-religious belief systems 
     or ``new age'' belief systems as defined in Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2, 
     1988; (e) is offensive to, or designed to change, 
     participants' personal values or lifestyle outside the 
     workplace; or (f) includes content related to human 
     immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome 
     (HIV/AIDS) other than that necessary to make employees more 
     aware of the medical ramifications of HIV/AIDS and the 
     workplace rights of HIV-positive employees.
       Sec. 323. None of the funds in this Act shall, in the 
     absence of express authorization by Congress, be used 
     directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, 
     advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or 
     written matter, or other device, intended or designed to 
     influence in any manner a Member of Congress, to favor or 
     oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation or 
     appropriation by Congress, whether before or after the 
     introduction of any bill or resolution proposing such 
     legislation or appropriation: Provided, That this shall not 
     prevent officers or employees of the Department of 
     Transportation or related agencies funded in this Act from 
     communicating to Members of Congress on the request of any 
     Member or to Congress, through the proper official channels, 
     requests for legislation or appropriations which they deem 
     necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business.
       Sec. 324. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in 
     expending the funds the entity will comply with the Buy 
     American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).
       (b) Sense of the Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
       (1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided using 
     funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the 
     Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products to the greatest extent practicable.
       (2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance using funds made available in this Act, 
     the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each 
     recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement 
     made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 325. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     receipts, in amounts determined by the Secretary, collected 
     from users of fitness centers operated by or for the 
     Department of Transportation shall be available to support 
     the operation and maintenance of those facilities.
       Sec. 326. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to implement or enforce regulations that would result in the 
     withdrawal of a slot from an air carrier at O'Hare 
     International Airport under section 93.223 of title 14 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations in excess of the total slots 
     withdrawn from that air carrier as of October 31, 1993 if 
     such additional slot is to be allocated to an air carrier or 
     foreign air carrier under section 93.217 of title 14 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 327. Notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 41742, no essential air 
     service subsidies shall be

[[Page H4773]]

     provided to communities in the 48 contiguous States that are 
     located fewer than 70 highway miles from the nearest large or 
     medium hub airport, or that require a rate of subsidy per 
     passenger in excess of $200 unless such point is greater than 
     210 miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise as assistant majority leader and as a member of 
the New York delegation to seek support from the distinguished chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), to protect 
funding crucial to New York State and to uphold the historic 
legislation covering highway and transportation programs, which is 
known colloquially as TEA-21.
  This time last year, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century, known as TEA-21, was signed into law. The success of this bill 
is due to a 3-year effort of the authorizing committee, the 
appropriating committee, and support from a broad coalition. TEA-21 has 
been an enormous success. It established a new funding formula 
structure for distributing funds to States. This funding formula 
represents a carefully crafted, well-balanced compromise.
  Mr. Chairman, the Senate will soon consider its version of the 
transportation appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2000. On May 27, 
the Senate Committee on Appropriations included a controversial 
provision that unfairly caps transit aid at 12.5 percent of the total 
amount of transit dollars that any one State may receive. This 
legislation, as crafted, adversely affects the Nation's two most 
transit-dependent States, those of California and New York, and would 
result in an estimated loss of $1.2 billion over a 6-year period or at 
a minimum $200 million per year for New York and $120 million per year 
for California.
  This artificial cap was included in the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations with no notice or public debate on its merits. I wanted 
to ask the distinguished subcommittee chairman for his support for 
maintaining that historic compromise.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman bringing this to 
my attention, and also the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney). I 
have also spoken to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) about 
the same thing.
  The gentleman has my commitment to do everything we can to attempt to 
make this the way it should be with regard to fairness. We have never 
been into punishing one State over another, so I can assure the 
gentleman we will work with the gentleman, and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Sweeney), and the other members of the New York delegation, 
and also the California delegation who have come to me again, as I 
said, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and others, to make 
sure that there is fairness.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my gratitude to the 
subcommittee chairman and my friend on behalf of the House who 
supported the compromise, and as a member of the New York delegation, 
and I just wanted to reiterate how important this is.
  New York has one-third of the Nation's transit riders, California has 
about 14 percent. Combined the two States make up almost half of the 
entire Nation's transit users. On a daily basis, New York State has 
over 7.5 million transit riders. On the MTA system alone, the daily 
ridership is 7.2 million. For the millions of people who use mass 
transit, the environment and the economy, we should uphold the 
allocation formulas we worked so hard for in that historically crafted 
bill.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would just tell him that a member of my family lives in New York City 
and I understand how congested the traffic is and the needs and 
everything else, so the gentleman makes a very credible point.
  Mr. LAZIO. I ride on that subway myself.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) who 
has been working very hard on this issue and, as a matter of fact, has 
gathered on a bipartisan basis signatures for the subcommittee 
chairman.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Lazio).
  Quickly, I want to applaud this effort, and I am proud to join it. As 
the chairman knows, 81 members from both the New York and California 
delegation sent a letter to the chairman last week, and I wanted to add 
a point to this.
  I represent a rural area, and on behalf of the rural areas in New 
York and California, I wanted to just stress that rural transit systems 
have few sources of revenue to make up for huge cuts to their Federal 
formula funding allocation. So this will hit disproportionately those 
areas pretty significantly.
  As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) has pointed out, we in New 
York have committed to a high standard on infrastructure repair and 
transportation repair. A higher share of our own resources are 
committed to transit than any other State; nearly 70 percent of our $12 
million Statewide transit capital program financed from State and local 
resources.
  So this is a critical issue for us in my district and throughout New 
York State. And, again, I want to applaud the efforts of my colleague, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), and ask the Chairman for his 
support and thank the gentleman for the opportunity to express this 
concern.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman once again yield?
  Mr. LAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. I would give the gentleman the same type of commitment, Mr. 
Chairman, as with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), and I 
appreciate the gentleman bringing it to my attention. Both gentlemen 
have talked to me about it a number of times, and we will do everything 
we can to help.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the 
gentleman for his support.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 328. Rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees 
     and other funds received by the Department from travel 
     management centers, charge card programs, the subleasing of 
     building space, and miscellaneous sources are to be credited 
     to appropriations of the Department and allocated to elements 
     of the Department using fair and equitable criteria and such 
     funds shall be available until December 31, 2000.
       Sec. 329. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule 
     or regulation, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized 
     to allow the issuer of any preferred stock heretofore sold to 
     the Department to redeem or repurchase such stock upon the 
     payment to the Department of an amount determined by the 
     Secretary.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanford

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanford:
       Page 42, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(plus an additional reduction of $1,000,000)''.
       Page 42, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment because he seeks to amend a paragraph that has 
already been read under the 5-minute rule. The House manual clearly 
states in Section 876(2) that when a paragraph or section has been 
passed, it is not in order to return thereto.
  I regret to say the gentleman's amendment comes too late, and I ask 
for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) 
wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. SANFORD. No, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the amendment. It was 
a last chance to save the taxpayers $1 million. We had indeed passed 
this section of the bill, but, nonetheless, I wanted to try.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 330. For necessary expenses of the Amtrak Reform 
     Council authorized under section 203 of Public Law 105-134, 
     $750,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001.

[[Page H4774]]

       Sec. 331. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to 
     transfer funds appropriated for any office of the Office of 
     the Secretary to any other office of the Office of the 
     Secretary: Provided, That no appropriation shall be increased 
     or decreased by more than 12 per centum by all such 
     transfers: Provided further, That any such transfer shall be 
     submitted for approval to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 332. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to issue a final standard under docket number NHTSA 98-
     3945 (relating to section 656(b) of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996).
       Sec. 333. (a) Section 110(b)(2) of the Arctic Research and 
     Policy Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. 4109(b)(2)) is amended by 
     striking all that follows ``research'' and inserting a 
     period.
       (b) Section 312 of the Arctic Marine Living Resources 
     Convention Act of 1984 (16 U.S.C. 2441) is amended by 
     striking subsection (c).
       Sec. 334. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     for activities under the Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee 
     Program during fiscal year 2000.
       Sec. 335. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     carry out the functions and operations of the office of motor 
     carriers within the Federal Highway Administration.
       Sec. 336. Section 3027 of the Transportation Equity Act for 
     the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 5307 note: 112 Stat. 336) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Government share for operating assistance to certain 
     smaller urbanized areas.--Notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 5307(e), 
     a grant of the Government for operating expenses of a project 
     under 49 U.S.C. 5307(b) in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to any 
     recipient that is providing transit services in an urbanized 
     area with a population between 128,000 and 128,200, as 
     determined in the 1990 census, and that had adopted a five-
     year transit plan before September 1, 1998, may not be more 
     than 80 percent of the net project cost.''.
       Sec. 337. Section 130 of Title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended in subsection (f) by striking ``90 percent'' where it 
     appears in the last sentence and inserting ``100 percent''.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order against section 
337 on page 50, lines 1 through 4. This is legislation on an 
appropriation bill and is in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  This provision is an amendment to section 130 of title 23 to raise 
the Federal share for rail-highway grade crossing projects funded under 
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on that, if I may.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) may be heard on 
the point of order.
  Mr. WOLF. I am going to concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman, but 
this is the provision that deletes the non-Federal match for the 
section 130 grade crossing program.
  In 1998, the unobligated national balance totaled $148 million and 
now may be as high as $220 million. Many States have difficulty 
expanding the section 130 funds and, as a result, some States have a 
few years of unobligated balances that could be used to eliminate grade 
crossings.
  For example, the State of Wisconsin has $13 million in unobligated 
balances. The State of Oregon has $6,888,000 in unobligated balances. 
If we were to delete the non-Federal match, it would permit States to 
reduce those unobligated balances and eliminate a greater number of 
grade crossing hazards than previously planned and, therefore, 
improving safety for the American family.
  Mr. Chairman, maybe this is an area the authorizers could look at, 
because I think it would enable States to move that money quickly and, 
I think, bring about safety. Each year there are 3,500 collisions at 
grade crossings with nearly 1,500 injuries and 500 deaths. The tragic 
accident we heard of earlier, that we worked with the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller) on, certainly demonstrates that more needs to be 
done to upgrade safety at grade crossings. With that, hopefully, this 
can be looked at in some way, because I think it would be good in 
helping to save lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I do concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The language cited by the point of order directly 
amends existing law. As such, it constitutes legislation. The point of 
order is sustained. The section is stricken.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 338. Section 3030(b) of the Transportation Equity Act 
     for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 373-375) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(71) Dane County Corridor--East-West Madison Metropolitan 
     Area.''.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order against section 
338 on page 50 lines 5 through 9. This is legislation on an 
appropriation bill and is in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. This 
provision is an amendment to TEA-21 to authorize a mass transit project 
in Dane County, Wisconsin.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) concedes the 
point of order.
  The language cited directly amends existing law. As such, it 
constitutes legislation, and the point of order is sustained. This 
section is stricken.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 339. Funds provided in Public Law 104-205 for the 
     Griffin light rail project shall be available for alternative 
     analysis and environmental impact studies for other transit 
     alternatives in the Griffin corridor from Hartford to Bradley 
     International Airport.
       Sec. 340. Section 3030(c)(1)(A)(v) of the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178) is 
     amended by deleting ``Light Rail''.
       Sec. 341. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     federal share of projects funded under section 3038(g)(1)(B) 
     of Public Law 105-178 shall not exceed 90 percent of the 
     project cost.
       Sec. 342. The Secretary of Transportation is hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures and investments, within 
     the limits of funds available pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44307, 
     and in accordance with section 104 of the Government 
     Corporation Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may 
     be necessary in carrying out the program for aviation 
     insurance activities under chapter 443 of title 49, United 
     States Code.

                              {time}  1300


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
342, on page 50, line 22 through page 51, line 4.
  This is legislation on an appropriations bill and is in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI. This provision reauthorizes the payments from the 
War Risk Insurance Program. The House has twice passed versions of the 
War Risk Insurance Program this year, and a 5-year reauthorization of 
the program has passed the House and is currently pending in the 
Senate.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded.
  The language cited by the point of order conveys authority to the 
Executive. As such, it constitutes legislation.
  The point of order is sustained. The section is stricken.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read, as follows:
       Sec. 343. Notwithstanding current policies or guidelines of 
     the Department of Transportation, the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration is hereby authorized to issue 
     grant awards utilizing funds limited in this bill under 
     ``Grants-in-aid for airports'' fifteen days after transmittal 
     of recommended grant awards to the Office of the Secretary of 
     Transportation for Congressional notification purposes.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
343, on page 51, lines 5 through 12.
  This is legislation on an appropriations bill and is in a violation 
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  This provision mandates changes in the FAA's grant award and 
processing policies so that all grant awards must be issued within 15 
days of the notification of their approval.
  A similar provision was included in H.R. 1000, which passed this 
House overwhelmingly last week.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The language cited by the point of order conveys 
authority to the Executive. As such, it constitutes legislation.
  The point of order is conceded and sustained.
  The section is stricken.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read, as follows:
       Sec. 344. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to execute a letter of no prejudice, letter of intent or full 
     funding grant agreement for the Salt Lake City west-east 
     light rail line, any segment thereof, or a downtown connector 
     in Salt Lake City, Utah.
       Sec. 345. Of the funds made available to the Coast Guard in 
     this Act under ``Acquisition, construction, and 
     improvements'', $10,000,000 is only for necessary expenses to 
     support a portion of the acquisition costs, currently 
     estimated at $128,000,000, of a multi-mission vessel to 
     replace the Mackinaw icebreaker in

[[Page H4775]]

     the Great Lakes, to remain available until September 30, 
     2005.
       Sec. 346. Notwithstanding the Federal Airport Act (as in 
     effect on April 3, 1956) or sections 47125 and 47153 of title 
     49, United States Code, and subject to subsection (b), the 
     Secretary of Transportation may waive any term contained in 
     the deed of conveyance dated April 3, 1956, by which the 
     United States conveyed lands to the city of Safford, Arizona, 
     for use by the city for airport purposes: Provided, That no 
     waiver may be made under subsection (a) if the waiver would 
     result in the closure of an airport.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
346, on page 52, lines 1 through 10.
  This is legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 
2 of rule XXI. This provision waives deed restrictions for an airport 
in Safford, Arizona. Moreover, it would allow the airport to sell land 
without having to reinvest the proceeds of the sale in the airport, 
which is contrary to provisions in Title 49 of the U.S. Code and to the 
usual practice of the House when deed restrictions have been removed 
for other airports across the country.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, while I will concede the point of order, I would like 
to inquire of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the 
distinguished chairman, about his reasons for objecting to this.
  Let me just state, for the record, that I have been working closely 
with the local community, the local FAA representatives, the Aircraft 
Owners and Pilots Association, for years to draft language that is 
acceptable and have attempted to work with his committee and committee 
staff to do that. This has been the result of long discussions to get 
us to where we are. It only allows the FAA to waive terms contained in 
the 1956 deed of conveyance more than 40 years ago. It does not require 
them to do so.
  This is land which is vitally needed in order for this small rural 
community where unemployment is three times the rate of other areas in 
Arizona to develop an industrial park in this area. I am just curious 
as to why this particular provision, looking at all the provisions in 
here that were not singled out, as to why this one has been singled 
out.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, continuing to rise on my point of order, I 
will respond to the gentleman by pointing out that he did ask us to put 
this in AIR-21, and we said that if they could provide us with 
information showing that it conformed with other actions of the past, 
we would be happy to consider it.
  Moreover, and even more importantly, we have required other airports 
across America to conform, particularly even an airport in my own 
congressional district in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. So when we have 
required this of other airports, including an airport in my own 
congressional district, it hardly seems fair to provide this special 
consideration for an airport in another part of the country. And those 
are my reasons, I say to my good friend.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would simply state that we are prepared to 
use language that conforms precisely to language that was used in AIR-
21 last week on another project in Newport News that would apparently 
do that. We have attempted to have discussions with the staff about 
this and apparently have not had a great deal of success.
  I must say that this objection is very devastating to this community, 
which has been trying very hard for a long time to get this very small 
project of economic development off the ground. I would just simply say 
that I do not think that this language is different than has been 
provided in other cases, and I do believe we can point to that.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to further 
emphasize that requiring my own community of Chambersburg, 
Pennsylvania, to adhere to the law certainly was difficult for them. 
But having required them to adhere to the law, it would seem very, very 
unfair to give a special waiver to another community.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The language cited by the point of order explicitly waives existing 
law. As such, it constitutes legislation.
  The point of order is sustained.
  The section is stricken.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota for yielding and for his hard work on this piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a concern about this legislation in regard to an 
authorization for a critical transit project in Dane County, Wisconsin, 
which is in my district. I would like to engage the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Ground 
Transportation, in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, Dane County and the City of Madison are currently 
examining future transportation needs, including various mass transit 
options. Traffic congestion and the need for additional parking will 
need to be addressed as the population of the region continues to grow 
into the next century. Dane County, which contains Madison, is working 
hard to promote concentrated development along existing and potential 
transit corridors.
  In addition, I would like to note the strong potential of new mass 
transit options since Madison Metro consistently ranks as one of the 
finest in the Nation with excellent service and ridership that ranks 
higher than most similar cities.
  Unfortunately, Dane County was not ready for new start projects 
authorization when TEA-21 was enacted last year. Their planning for 
future transit needs has now reached a point where an authorization for 
a new start project would be appropriated.
  I understand that such an authorization would be most appropriately 
included on a bill from the committee of jurisdiction, the House 
Subcommittee on Ground Transportation. I would like to obtain the 
assurance of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) that an 
authorization for the Dane County project would be considered in the 
subcommittee's next appropriate vehicle.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield, I would like 
to thank the gentlewoman and assure her that the subcommittee would be 
pleased to consider an authorization for the Dane County project in our 
next appropriate vehicle.
  I understand that Dane County has a number of transit options under 
consideration and would be seeking Federal funding for continued 
planning and evaluation in budget year 2002. And I am quite sure that 
the need of the county can be addressed by our committee on a timely 
basis, and I look forward to working with my colleague toward that end.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I 
look forward to working with him to address the transit needs of Dane 
County.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for the purposes of a 
colloquy.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman, the ranking member, for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his hard work. I would like to 
enter into a colloquy on an important matter in my community that many 
of us have worked on, and that is included in H.R. 2084, the Houston, 
Texas Main Street Corridor Project, of which a request was made for 
some $8 million. It received $1 million in funding for fiscal year 
2000.
  I would hope, as we move this bill to conference, that, in 
recognizing the commitment that the committee has made to 
infrastructure and making our communities less congested, that we could 
seek an additional funding of $500,000 to keep this project on 
schedule.
  Traffic congestion and a depleted infrastructure threatens the future 
of this vital backbone of transit. Houston's Main Street Corridor has 
been the heart of the 2,000 square mile Houston region for many years. 
In fact, we have gathered together a diverse community collaboration 
and coalition that have organized around enhancing the Main Street 
Corridor.
  The Corridor runs from Buffalo Bayo north through Downtown, Midtown, 
Hermann Park, and the Texas Medical Center. Main Street links two 
important economic hubs, Downtown and

[[Page H4776]]

Texas Medical Center, as well as the entertainment, cultural, and 
governmental centers. The City of Houston and I and others believe that 
this funding is necessary to ensure that effective traffic management 
will continue the redevelopment of this center of commerce and 
business, the very principles of this committee.
  Long-term, this project will result in increased development density, 
increased access to jobs, reduced automobile inventories, lower 
emissions, and reduced long-term capital investment in the regional 
infrastructure, again, the principles of this committee.
  I would ask my colleagues, the ranking member, and the chairman to 
work with me on this matter.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for 
bringing this important matter to the consideration of the 
subcommittee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Sabo was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, as we go to conference and consider all our 
alternatives, we will keep the request of the gentlewoman in mind.
  Let me add, however, for the gentlewoman and for all other Members 
that part of this bill carries very significant increase in transit 
formula funding for local transit agencies and we may have limits as to 
what we can do in discretionary funding. But communities should also 
look to the additional formula funding for potential use in preliminary 
engineering on some of these projects.
  I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this to our attention.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has spoken to me about this. 
Everything is very tight. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and I 
can work together and see. But we will certainly take a very, very 
close look at it, I promise.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
continue to yield, this is most helpful to me, and I thank the 
gentlemen very much for their cooperation in working on this very 
important project.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 347. None of the funds in this Act may be expended to 
     review or issue a waiver for a vessel deemed to be equipped 
     with a double buttom or double sides.
       This act may be cited as the ``Department of Transportation 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000''.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Rogan

  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rogan:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds in this Act may be used for the 
     planning or development of the California State Route 710 
     Freeway extension project through South Pasadena, California 
     (as approved in the Record of Decision on State Route 710 
     Freeway, issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation, 
     Federal Highway Administration, on April 13, 1998).

  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, in order to defer to my colleague from South 
Carolina (Mr. Sanford) I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment 
for the time being.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanford

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanford:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. ___. Funds provided in this Act for the Transportation 
     Administrative Service Center (TASC) shall be further reduced 
     by $1,000,000.

  Mr. SANFORD (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would applaud the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), I would applaud the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), I would applaud the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn) for what they have done to in essence refine this bill as we go 
through this process here on the House floor. What this amendment does 
is it basically continues that simple theme of refining and focusing 
this bill, because this bill looks at the Transportation Administrative 
Service Center which was basically founded by the Department of 
Transportation back in 1997.
  It last year was funded at about $109 million. This year it is 
projected to be funded at about $148 million. All this amendment does 
is it takes one of those million dollars of increase, and again, there 
are roughly about $50 million of increase, it takes one of those 
million dollars and it cuts it. The reason it does that is because it 
is basically a shot over the bow to this service center to say, ``Let's 
really look under the hood at some of these expenses and really examine 
closely whether or not they are in the best interests of the 
taxpayer.''
  A lot of the things that this service center does basically for the 
Department of Transportation makes a whole lot of sense. Whether it is 
with photocopying or telecommunications services, there are certain 
advantages to one-stop-shopping which this center does. But some of the 
expenses when we really looked at them to me did not pass the litmus 
test of best interests of the taxpayer.
  Let me give my colleagues just a few of those. First of all, it has 
like career development seminar and workshops designed to assist 
organizations in promoting employee empowerment. It goes on to say, 
``Emphasis is on providing employees with the tools, the information, 
the resources they need to seek opportunities that will make them more 
marketable and enhance their careers.''
  That is a good thing, but I do not know that it is really in the best 
interest of building more roads and bridges and airports across this 
country. Similarly, another component of the center was fitness center 
equipment consulting.
  I read from their own web page:
  ``If you're thinking of purchasing exercise equipment for your 
employees but are not sure what it should cost, what's most effective, 
what's currently popular, let our staff with over 50 years of 
experience in exercise physiology and fitness equipment handling assist 
you to facilitate your plans.'' That is a very nice thing, but again it 
is almost a bureaucracy within a bureaucracy. I do not think the 
taxpayer really wants to see a lot of those.
  Another one here I see, responding to employee stress. It says here, 
``These are difficult times, downsizing, changing work styles, 
uncertainty about the future, family stresses. The effects of too much 
stress can start showing up in the workplace in big and small ways. Let 
us help you help them.''
  A lot of these things, I am sure, are very reasonable things. That is 
why this bill only cuts $1 million of the basic $50 million of 
increase, asking them to carefully look under the hood to really 
examine whether or not all these expenses are warranted. I think the 
committee has already taken up the Inspector General's study which 
basically discontinued the computer operations over at the service 
center. This is again a shot over the bow. It is nothing more than 
that.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order and state that 
I have no objection to this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws the point of order.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  This amendment cuts $1 million from the Transportation Administrative 
Service Center, which has already been cut in the request by $10 
million in this bill.
  The center finances common administrative services, such as payroll, 
accounting, copying and telecommunications that can be performed more

[[Page H4777]]

 economically and efficiently through a central organization rather 
than the various modal administrations of the Department of 
Transportation.
  Mr. Chairman, the entire purpose of the Transportation Administrative 
Service Center is to save the government money by consolidating 
redundant administrative overhead and functions. Individual 
departmental agencies may purchase administrative services outside the 
Transportation Administrative Service Center only if they can 
demonstrate that doing so is cost beneficial to the department as a 
whole.
  Rather than supporting the Transportation Department's effort to 
control costs by centralizing administrative functions, this amendment 
would penalize the Department.
  The net effect of the Sanford amendment might well be that the 
various agencies in the Department will seek out other sources for 
their needs which could cause duplication of procurement, accounting 
and other administrative services and higher costs overall.
  In the end, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not save money, it will 
cost the government money, and it should not be adopted.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I have no 
objection to the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. It takes a million dollars 
away from a $39 million increase. The reason it does, it says to the 
people who are working in this center, you can spend the money more 
wisely, more efficiently.
  The concept of the center is fine, but a 45 percent increase in your 
spending this year? We are going to cut some of that back. We recognize 
the value of this center, but we can save a million dollars and send a 
signal that ``next year, if you are not better, you are not going to 
see this kind of increase. Regardless of what is there, you cannot 
justify the inefficiencies that you are generating.''
  The Sanford amendment takes just $1 million out of a $39 million 
increase and says, ``We want you to wake up and smell the roses, do 
some things a little more efficiently, and let's save some money.'' It 
is not even 1 percent of their budget, it is about three-quarters of 1 
percent, and it is of an increase. They had $109 million last year, we 
are going to give them $148 million this year.
  I want to make one other statement. Earlier in our debate today, we 
talked about how $170 million was not much. $170 million will pay for 
the Social Security for 1.8 million Americans this year. When this bill 
is finished, if we pass it, we are going to have savings of about $555 
million. That is enough to pay the Social Security for 5.4 million 
Americans. That is a good achievement. We ought not to lose sight of 
that.
  Let us save an additional $1 million, we can save another couple of 
hundred thousand people their opportunity for Social Security, and we 
can live up to the commitment that we all agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Andrews

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Andrews:
       Page 52, after line 13, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 348. The amount otherwise provided by section 330 for 
     the Amtrak Reform Council is hereby reduced by $300,000.

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania reserves a point of 
order.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I believe that one of the bipartisan 
success stories of the last few years in America's transportation 
policy has been the improvements that have taken place in Amtrak. I am 
a frequent rider on Amtrak and a great devotee of its efforts. I salute 
all the men and women who work so hard for Amtrak.
  I also believe that the efforts of the chairman of the authorizing 
committee the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman 
of the appropriations subcommittee the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf), together with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), their ranking members, have 
helped to take what was a very critical and difficult situation just a 
few years ago and turn it into a success story. I commend and 
congratulate them for that.
  This amendment is really offered in the spirit of continuing the 
success that I believe they and the thousands of men and women who work 
for Amtrak have achieved, because it is based on the idea, Mr. 
Chairman, that too many cooks spoil the broth. Amtrak has achieved a 
labor-management cooperation. It is achieving a program of progress 
together with its unions and its management that have improved service, 
increased revenues and expanded future opportunities for Amtrak for 
years to come.
  I believe when something is on the right track, when something is 
proceeding the way that it should, that second-guessing and Monday 
morning quarterbacking really is inappropriate. The role of the Amtrak 
Reform Council lends itself to the possibility of that Monday morning 
quarterbacking and second-guessing.
  There is a delicate balance that has been established in labor and 
management in Amtrak, with the cooperation of the rail unions, with the 
able leadership of the board of directors of Amtrak, and its management 
headed by Mr. Warrington. I think that the possibility of mischief 
being created that would upset that delicate balance, that frankly 
would roll back meaningful and important labor protections for men and 
women who work for Amtrak would be the wrong thing to do.
  Now, I had contemplated offering an amendment that would have the 
effect of defunding, or zeroing out, or eliminating the Amtrak Reform 
Council. In retrospect, I believe that would be the wrong approach to 
take at this time. Again, I would salute the efforts of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) in contributing to the worthy mission of the Amtrak Reform 
Council.
  In lieu of that idea, I offer this amendment which limits the funding 
in the new fiscal year for the Amtrak Reform Council to the same amount 
that the reform council received in fiscal year 1999, namely, $450,000. 
I would commend the gentleman from Virginia as chairman of the 
subcommittee and the gentleman from Minnesota as ranking member for 
their efforts they have already made in reducing the funding request, 
which was well over $1 million, down to $750,000, and I thank them for 
that. I believe, though, that there is no evidence that justifies an 
increase in the funding of the Amtrak Reform Council, so it is the 
express intent of my amendment and the effect of my amendment that we 
reduce the funding for the Amtrak Reform Council down to its fiscal 
year 1999 level of $450,000.
  Those of us who believe that there is risk of mischief, that there is 
the chance that important labor protections would be undone, those of 
us who believe that the balance that the board of directors and the 
management and labor of Amtrak are achieving would be disrupted, 
believe that the best way to limit that risk is to appropriately limit 
the funding of the Amtrak Reform Council to the level that it was 
funded in the 1999 budget of $450,000.
  To summarize, this is a compromise between those of us who believe 
that maybe there is no role at all for the Amtrak Reform Council and 
those who would wish to see it do more. The compromise calls for the 
limitation of funds to the 1999 level. The amendment cuts $300,000 from 
the level of appropriation. I again express my appreciation to the 
chairman and ranking member for the fiscally prudent steps they have 
already taken. I would just respectfully say I believe we should just 
go a little further and limit the funding to the 1999 level, in 
particular importance to making sure that the important labor 
protections that are in our law protecting Amtrak employees and 
passengers remain in the law.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey which would restrict funding 
for

[[Page H4778]]

the Amtrak Reform Council to $450,000, or the level enacted in fiscal 
year 1999. The bill before my colleagues contains an appropriation for 
the ARC of $750,000 which is what the administration asked for, well 
below the $1.3 million that the ARC requested for fiscal year 2000. We 
have taken them down dramatically to the level requested by the 
administration.
  Secondly, this was part of the Amtrak authorization bill. We want to 
do everything we can to see that Amtrak makes it. For those of us who 
voted for the ARC in the authorization bill, we need to give them the 
ability to do their work. If we don't, it would be a mistake.
  I have a letter from Mr. Carmichael, Chairman of the Amtrak Reform 
Council. He says:
  ``Cutting ARC's funding to $450,000 would damage ARC severely. 
Specifically, the cut would mean eliminating our valuable program of 
field hearings that are providing important insights into the problems 
of Amtrak and rail passenger service throughout the Nation, and laying 
off at least two of our small staff of six''--they only have a staff of 
six--``just at the time when we will be preparing our first annual 
report under the Congressional mandate.''

                              {time}  1330

  The Congress created the panel. I think to wound the panel at this 
time would be a mistake.
  In 1998 Amtrak lost $930 million. Amtrak's high speed program, the 
most important element in Amtrak's program to improve its financial 
performance to meet the goals of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability 
Act, is now falling behind schedule, and now for Congress to try to 
save $300,000, which is the amount that Amtrak loses in about an 8-hour 
period, by underfunding the organization as it is trying to bring 
fiscal sanity and some semblance of making this organization run 
appropriately would really be shortsighted. It would be self-defeating 
for those who really want Amtrak to survive, to make it, as the members 
of this committee and most Members of the Congress want. It would be a 
mistake.
  So I have great respect, and sometimes we just say those things, but 
I am not just saying it for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews), but I really think this would actually hurt Amtrak. Since 
Congress in its wisdom set up the ARC to help Amtrak stay alive, we 
should not take their ability away.
  So, therefore, I urge the defeat of the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in opposition to the amendment also.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman withdraw the point of order?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I withdraw my point of order; yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I join with the chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations' subcommittee in opposing this amendment.
  We made a deal, and the deal when we decided to continue to support 
Amtrak was that there would be this independent commission of public 
spirited, unpaid volunteers appointed by the congressional leadership 
and the President under our reform law to have them look at Amtrak.
  Now why does Amtrak need looked at?
  Amtrak lost $930 million last year. The Federal Government, the 
taxpayers of America, subsidized Amtrak to the tune of $1.7 billion 
last year. So this paltry $300,000 that we are debating right here now 
represents 2 ten-thousandths of 1 percent of the money that the 
taxpayers put into Amtrak. We need this tiny sum so that the commission 
can do its work. One of the reasons we need this additional tiny sum is 
because the President was so tardy in appointing the commissioners. We 
need to let them do their work. If they can come up with one small 
recommendation, to figure out how to save 2 ten-thousandths of 1 
percent of the money the taxpayers put in this bill, this will cover 
this tiny amount of money that we are speaking about here today.
  But the issue really is not the money. The issue here is there are 
those who do not want any oversight of Amtrak, any independent 
oversight of Amtrak. They want us to keep pouring billions of dollars 
into Amtrak without having any outside group looking over their 
shoulder. It is wrong, and it is causing me to rethink my support of 
Amtrak.
  We have got to provide adequate funding, and if we do not provide 
adequate funding, then it is time, I guess, for us to start looking at 
more drastic measures concerning Amtrak.
  Let us not renege on the deal we made when we passed Amtrak reform, 
which included having this provision in it. Let us adequately fund it, 
tiny as those funds may be, so that they can do the job they are 
supposed to do, and I urge a vote against this amendment which breaks 
the deal that we made previously.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I just want the Record to show some of the 
fiscal facts about the Amtrak Reform Council and, in particular, what 
many of us believe is its potential for doing mischief to the rights of 
working men and women in the hard-fought rights of those who belong to 
collective bargaining units to unions in the Amtrak company.
  The director, the executive director of the commission, makes 
$148,000 a year, more than we do. Now I am sure that individual works 
very hard, but so do we, and I am not sure that that is an appropriate 
expenditure.
  There is $700,000 for technical support and analysis that was 
requested without much delineation as to what that was for. One of our 
concerns is that there would be the overuse of outside consultants, 
often at the cost of $400 an hour or so, and again I want to say for 
the record that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) I think has done 
an admirable job in paring down this request, and I acknowledge and 
respect that. They have proposed a great deal of travel from their 
travel budgets.
  And I would also point out that ARC, the Amtrak Reform Council, has 
at its disposal the resources of the Department of Transportation 
already. We do not need to reinvent this wheel or charge the public 
twice for something already at its disposal. The Inspector General's 
office at the DOT is also conducting an ongoing assessment of Amtrak. 
The GAO is available with its resources to investigate and think about 
these questions, and then various other offices under the auspices of 
the Secretary of Transportation.
  So I simply believe that it is prudent and right to strike a balance 
by limiting funding of the ARC to last year's amount that was in last 
year's bill of $450,000, and I would just caution that many of us are 
concerned that broader financing means broader power, and broader power 
means the ability to do broader mischief to the hard-fought rights that 
were won in collective bargaining of the men and women who work for 
Amtrak.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 218, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Rogan

  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rogan:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds in this Act may be used for the 
     planning or development of the California State Route 710 
     Freeway extension project through South Pasadena, California 
     (as approved in the Record of Decision on State Route 710 
     Freeway, issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation, 
     Federal Highway Administration, on April 13, 1998).

  (Mr. ROGAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H4779]]

  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment for the residents of 
Pasadena and South Pasadena in California. Their historic communities 
are threatened today by a proposal to construct an extension to the 710 
freeway through South Pasadena. This extension will cost the taxpayers 
over $1\1/2\ billion and will slice the historic community of South 
Pasadena into quarters. My amendment offered today will prohibit funds 
from this bill from being allocated to the planning or construction of 
the 710 freeway project.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues may know, we face considerable traffic 
and congestion problems in that region. Steps must be taken to 
alleviate this challenge. However, building an expensive, 
environmentally-harmful freeway in the middle of historic South 
Pasadena is not the only or the best solution. Studies indicate that 
the 710 freeway extension will destroy more than 1,000 South Pasadena 
historic homes and dislocate more than 4,000 people. More than 7,000 
old trees and 70 national historic buildings will be razed. In fact, 
the National Trust for Historic Preservation has vehemently opposed the 
710 freeway and has worked to stop this devastating project. This is 
the first time in the history of the National Trust For Historic 
Preservation that they have taken a stand against a Federal Highway 
project, but this organization has seen the danger of continuing the 
710 freeway.
  Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government shares the concerns of the 
community leaders regarding this pork barrel project. A tentative 
ruling on ordering a preliminary injunction was issued by Judge Dean 
Pragerson in the U.S. Federal District Court on June 2 of this year. 
Judge Pragerson found that the FHA and Cal Trans failed to properly 
evaluate Pasadena's multi-mode, low-build alternative. In fact, Judge 
Pragerson found a lack of new consideration regarding the impact upon 
historic homes and upon the environment in this community.
  We do have options which reduce traffic and minimize the impact of 
traffic mitigation efforts upon the area's environment. Studies show 
that a multi-modal, low-build alternative could move traffic through 
the affected area at average speeds of almost 18 miles per hour. As 
proposed, the 710 extension would only move traffic at an average speed 
of 18\1/2\ miles per hour. This is a meager improvement that does not 
justify leveling a community or spending $1.5 billion on a project that 
is not needed.
  Further, the low-build alternative will provide 90 percent of the 
transportation benefits of the proposed 710 extension for one-tenth of 
the cost.
  I share with the Chair a strong desire to improve our infrastructure 
in a manner that enhances communities, protects the environment and 
uses taxpayer dollars in a sensible way, but the 710 freeway project 
stands in direct opposition to these principles. My amendment will stop 
this project in its tracks for the year so that more sensible 
alternatives to reduce traffic in the area can be pursued.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGAN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that we have 
examined this amendment. It does not affect the firewalls in TEA-21, 
and therefore I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
those words.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in 
support of the amendment.
  We did this several years ago for the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler). In fact, I believe, if my memory serves me, that we actually 
carried it in the bill. I think we should defer to a Member who known 
firsthand their own congressional district. Each member knows their 
Congressional districts needs. This was the same principle we used with 
regard to Mr. Nadler in the past, and it is the same principle we would 
use here.
  So I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rogan).
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I really do not know why this amendment 
is before us since there is no mention in the appropriation bill of the 
710 freeway. Regardless, I understand that the gentleman is here to try 
to protect one of his cities that he represents, and that is 
commendable except that all the other cities in his district are in 
support of the completion of the freeway.
  Let me try to explain to my colleagues what the situation is with a 
little bit of the background since the distortion I have heard here 
today from the gentleman from the district to my north which is 
understandable given his contention about the completion of the freeway 
in regards to that city.
  First, let me correct something. The City of Pasadena is not in 
support of his amendment. They, in fact, passed a resolution in support 
of the completion of the freeway. We have letters which we will provide 
at the appropriate time in the full committee from the Transportation 
Department, from Cal Trans, from everybody else involved except the 
City of South Pasadena.
  Now, why I find this is illogical is because the record of decision 
that was signed by Rodney Slater, the Secretary of Transportation, was 
only to move the freeway from the present closure that it has now on 
Fremont and Valley to Huntington Drive, which is a much wider street, 
to alleviate the traffic congestion, the accidents and the 
environmental and soundness of having that freeway dump out on Valley 
Boulevard.
  Now the low-built proposition that has been offered several times and 
in several different manners has been studied over the period of some 
35 years, and everyone that studied that has found that it is 
inappropriate and that it would not correct the situation that exists 
and would only make matters more complicated.
  The gentleman uses statistic of 18 miles per hour on surface streets; 
that is absolutely true; and then 18 miles per hour on a freeway that 
cannot possibly be except in the heaviest of congestion, and if that 
freeway were completed, there would not be that congestion.

                              {time}  1345

  But more than that, the whole misunderstanding of this situation, as 
I said earlier, is that the record of decision only takes the freeway, 
relieving that congestion to the City of Alhambra to Huntington Drive, 
and the portion that goes to that point is not in the gentleman's 
district, but is in my district.
  I have certainly the right to stand and try to protect my city of 
Alhambra from all of the impacts that have been created, because South 
Pasadena is unwilling to be a good neighbor, because through South 
Pasadena that freeway would not present all of the problems that the 
gentleman has described, because it would be undergrounded through 
there, the top of it would be landscaped, historical buildings would be 
replaced and refurbished, so everything would be put back in order and 
it would not cut the city into quarters, as he has stated.
  More than that, this situation has existed there for 34 years. If the 
Transportation Department did not intend to complete this freeway, they 
should have never built it, because every city along that route suffers 
from lack of completion of that freeway.
  As far as displacing people, the freeway has for a long time 
displaced people in that the State was required to buy homes and over 
40 percent of the homes in that area have been purchased by the State 
and are already owned by the State towards the eventual completion of 
that freeway.
  But the record of decision that everybody agreed to came to the 
conclusion that the first thing to do was to move it from Fremont and 
the valley where it has created such a problem to Huntington Drive. 
Then the decision would be made. So at this point in time, any funding 
that would be denied would be denied for a completion that does not go 
through the gentleman's district, but up to the gentleman's district 
and, thereby, relieving the situation in the city below it.
  If that at that time comes to pass, that the freeway would need to be 
completed, that would have to be addressed

[[Page H4780]]

at that time with new environmental impact reports done and the like.
  At this point in time, the only thing he would be prohibiting is from 
funding for, if at some future date somebody would decide to fund that 
portion of the freeway to Huntington Drive, he would be preventing us 
from alleviating a series of problems that are created not only by the 
lack of completion of the freeway, but because of the elevated 
corridor, which is now going to put an extensive amount of train 
traffic through the district with many of the crossings being at grade, 
not below grade, and in this record of decision also, money was 
appropriated or was established that would be appropriated for the 
taking of those railroad crossings and putting them below grade.
  So at this point in time I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I 
would urge my colleagues to oppose it, since the completion that is 
taking place is within my district.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rogan), and I would like to engage him in a colloquy at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know anything about this project, although I 
do not know where it is, what it is, and I suspect most House Members 
do not. Is this a highway demo?
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a completion of a freeway project 
that was designed 50 years ago.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. Is this a highway project 
that was designed by the State of California with general highway 
funds?
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I cannot answer 
the question of the gentleman. It was designed before I was born. I am 
not sure where the source of the design came from.
  Mr. SABO. But it is not a demo project that we have specifically 
designated by Federal law?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, the answer to the gentleman's question is 
yes. The State of California designed that freeway with the intention 
of completing it.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming, my time, but it is not a demo?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. No, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SABO. So this is a project, Mr. Chairman, that has proceeded 
under whatever the procedures are in California, I assume using general 
Federal highway aid money, through the normal environmental process, 
dealing in whatever fashion they do in California with local units of 
government. I gather some of this project is built right now, and right 
now it is at a stop; is that accurate?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, yes, it is.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am finding it difficult to understand why 
on the House floor where most of us do not know what we are doing, we 
should make a judgment on what happens in the State of California with 
funds that they control, subject to the normal procedures that we have.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's inquiry, and I 
will try to enlighten the gentleman.
  In fact, the point the gentleman makes is the point that is currently 
before the Federal court. A permanent ruling is going to come down on 
July 1, but the Federal court, in a temporary ruling to an injunction 
has said a number of these factors have not been considered, such as 
the environmental impact, the impact upon the historic area of the 
community. So what I am attempting to do in this amendment is to stop 
the spending of Federal dollars on a project that could go forward 
through the general funds of the FHWA when, in fact, it may be a waste 
of money and certainly would have a very bad impact on the community.
  Mr. SABO. So, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this highway is also 
in the courts?
  Mr. ROGAN. Yes.
  Mr. SABO. And we are going to prejudge what the courts are going to 
do?
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, all 
I am attempting to do, as I indicated in my opening statement, is try 
to protect an historic area of the community and protect the 
environment.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am sure the gentleman 
is, but I am sort of curious why the U.S. House of Representatives on a 
late afternoon on the House floor, where most of us are not familiar 
with the project, should override whatever the normal procedures are 
and adopt an amendment saying we cannot do something which one normally 
can do in the State of California.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will again yield, it is 
because we have the purse strings here, and we have the right in the 
oversight to say whether or not such projects are going to be 
developed.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not know that we 
have often done that, although I hate to say never, on particular 
projects that are not demos.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I think we did several years ago, and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) can better explain, as the 
gentleman is here.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, that was that big elevated thing in New York?
  Mr. WOLF. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We interceded against it.
  Mr. SABO. But was that not a highway demo?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the staff tells me that it was not. That was 
in opposition to the State of New York in defense to the gentleman from 
the district.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, just as much as I can shed light on this 
for the benefit of my colleague from California, I guess it was the 
year before last there had been basically authorization within the 
Federal highway bill for an interstate to run down to Charleston, South 
Carolina.
  Our environmental community did not want that road running down to 
Charleston, and so we were actually able, with the help of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), to take it out and stop the 
road in Georgetown, South Carolina. So I do think there is historical 
precedence here.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, was that a demo?
  Mr. SANFORD. No, it was not.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Sabo was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, there are several differences between the 
examples that have been given here today. The freeway was set for 
completion, the design was there. The reason it was stopped is because 
in the State of California, we have a law that requires the cities to 
give permission for street closures when freeways were being built 
through a city. South Pasadena used that gimmick to stop the freeway 
because they refused to close the streets for the freeway to be built.
  Some 17 years later, when I was elected to the State legislature, 
with a negotiation with South Pasadena, we were able to pass a law that 
took that right of veto, because it actually amounts to veto, away from 
cities so that freeways that were for the best interests of the 
community and the surrounding communities and the whole area of L.A., 
because that completes a circulation pattern in the county of L.A., 
then that was passed and signed by the governor. Subsequent to that, we 
have had at every instance a roadblock put by South Pasadena trying to 
stop the freeway.
  Now, every community in southern California has got a freeway running 
to it, by it or through it. We have all had to suffer the indignation 
during the

[[Page H4781]]

building of it and we have all had to put up with a lot of 
inconveniences, in many cases no sound walls until more recently a bill 
was passed to require more sound walls.
  All of these things have been mitigated for South Pasadena in every 
way. As I said, it will be undergrounded through South Pasadena, no on 
ramps or off ramps, everything that is possible to be done for South 
Pasadena has been done, and yet they refuse. Every county in L.A. at 
one time or another has passed a resolution in order to complete that 
freeway because of the suffering that it causes everywhere else, and 
more than that, the State Transportation Department is in total support 
of the completion of that freeway. CALTRANS is in total support of that 
freeway. Everybody except South Pasadena is in support of completion of 
that freeway because of the need for it.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I remain confused.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House resolution 218, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes. I was 
unable to be here for the earlier part of the debate. I wanted to rise 
in strong support of the fiscal year 2000 Transportation Appropriations 
bill, and in particular, to commend the chairman and the ranking member 
for crafting this bipartisan legislation.
  In particular, I want to express my appreciation to the committee for 
providing $1 million appropriations for the planning and design of the 
Main Street Corridor project in Houston, Texas, a large part of which 
runs through my congressional district. The city of Houston, in 
collaboration with the Houston Metro and the Main Street Coalition, 
Incorporated is about to undertake a study of one of the most 
comprehensive urban redevelopment projects in Houston's history.
  The city of Houston is committed to redeveloping Main Street. 
Redeveloping the city's ``urban spine'' is critical to Houston's 
ability to compete economically, culturally, and socially in the next 
century. This project has the potential for becoming a thriving retail 
and commercial anchor for the future of economic growth.
  I again appreciate the work of both the chairman and the ranking 
member for including this, and I recommend passage of the bill.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to support the Transportation Appropriations 
bill, but I want to raise an issue that was discussed last year during 
the TEA-21 debate. The Federal Government is mandating that communities 
reduce their emissions from air pollution and is requiring that the 
private sector clean up its act on air emissions, yet it continues to 
provide funds to local transportation agencies that are, in fact, 
polluting the environment. I will give my colleagues an example, and I 
would ask us to reconsider our priorities in the very near future.
  We are going to spend $2.7 billion on traditional polluting mass 
transit using diesel fuel while only $50 million is going to clean 
technology.
  I would just ask both Chairmen Wolf and Shuster, who are here today, 
that next year, when we bring this spending bill up, that the Federal 
Government makes more of an effort to lead through example and make 
sure that every Federal transit dollar that is spent, no matter who 
spends it, is spending it in the purchase and the use of clean 
technology, clean buses and clean mass transit.
  For those of us that have worked on air pollution issues, it is 
frustrating to see the Federal Government, State governments, and local 
governments mandate that private citizens and the private sector clean 
up their act, while we have not redirected our resources towards the 
cleanest technology available. I would just ask the subcommittee 
chairman if he would be willing to work with we in the next fiscal year 
to make sure next year's allocation places a priority on the cleanest 
technology available and that Federal funds should be used on 
technology that will not only get our people around, but also do it 
without polluting the air.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I will. As the gentleman knows, there is 
money in the bill here, I believe $100 million, directed toward that 
effort, but we will be glad to work with him to see that we can do a 
better job for more.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. I 
think this is the beginning of a process that we can work together. Mr. 
Chairman, I want to point out that Chairman Shuster on the 
Transportation Committee has started this process. Traditionally for 
the last 30 years, Washington has been subsidizing dirty polluting 
diesel fuel while we have purported to be for clean air.

                              {time}  1400

  I appreciate Chairman Shuster and Wolf in trying to change that 
mindset. I would just ask that next year, going into the next 
millenium, we draw the line and say we will now support the clean air 
strategies with our commitment of Federal transportation funds.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to carry out the project specified in item 732 of the table 
     contained in section 1602 of Public Law 105-178.

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. NADLER. As Yogi Berra said, Mr. Chairman, it feels like deja vu 
all over again.
  This time I rise to offer an amendment to keep valuable taxpayer 
dollars from being wasted on an outrageous boondoggle in my district in 
New York.
  The issue is simple: The Miller Highway, which is 13 blocks long, the 
entire thing, 13 blocks, half a mile, was almost completely rebuilt 
only 5 years ago at a cost to the taxpayers of almost $90 million. It 
has a life expectancy expectancy of 35 to 40 years before major 
rehabilitation work may be necessary.
  Now Donald Trump wants us to spend $300 to $350 million to tear it 
down, a brand new highway, and bury it, bury it so it will not block 
the views of the Hudson River from some of the apartments in his new 
Riverside South luxury housing development. For $350 million of the 
taxpayers' money, Donald Trump will get higher prices for his condos.
  To add flame to the fire, nobody even pretends there is any 
transportation purpose for this project whatsoever. Indeed, the 
proposal is to replace a straight segment of highway with a curved 
segment, never a good idea from a transportation perspective.
  Nobody in the area affected in the community wants this project. It 
is opposed by every local elected official, the State senator, the 
State assembly member, the New York City council member, the Manhattan 
borough president, and the two local community planning boards.
  In past years this project has been opposed consistently by the 
Porkbusters Coalition, the Council for Citizens Against Government 
Waste, the National Taxpayers Union, the Taxpayers for Common Sense, 
not to mention the administration.
  Much is said in this Chamber about stopping waste and put an end to 
taxpayers' subsidies for millionaires and billionaires. Today we have 
an opportunity to buttress these statements with actions.
  To make it even worse, this is a project that is not going to happen. 
What we are doing is wasting money on planning an engineering studies 
for a project that will not happen.

[[Page H4782]]

  In the letter that was quoted on the floor last year from the mayor 
of the city of New York, he says as follows, dated March 26, last year: 
``While the administration is fully committed to the Miller Highway 
relocation,'' they think it is a good project, unlike me, ``it is 
critical that the funds for the project not redirect or act as an 
offset for Federal or State funds for other Transportation and 
Infrastructure projects in New York City. The city has numerous 
pressing highway and transportation needs that have Federal financial 
support, and the administration would not be able to support a 
relocation proposal that reduced the Federal commitments to these other 
projects.''
  In other words, they are only going to do this project if the House 
decides that we are going to take $300 million over and above what New 
York normally gets for transportation and give it specifically for this 
project. That is obviously not going to happen.
  They are not willing to, the city government is not willing to take 
$300 million from the normal city Federal aid for transportation, take 
it away from other projects for this. So what we are left with is a 
project that is not going to happen because no one is going to put the 
money into it, but we will waste 6 million a year, $5 million a year on 
environmental and planning studies and engineering studies for a 
project that will never happen.
  My amendment is simply saying, do not waste that $6 million, $10 
million on planning study for a project that should not happen and that 
will not happen.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the word.
  Mr. Chairman, it will be my intention in a moment to withdraw my 
reservation on my point of order, but I would make the point that I do 
not see any additional dollars being spent beyond T-21 on this project 
unless there is very substantial investment in the project by both the 
State and the city.
  As the gentleman has pointed out, that seems to be, in all 
probability, not going to happen.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would withdraw my reservation on my point 
of order and ask the gentleman if he would withdraw his amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, if I heard correctly, and if in fact what 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) is saying is that unless 
the city and the State come up with a specific financing plan to show a 
commitment for the bulk of the money, three-quarters or whatever of the 
several hundred million dollars that this will take, which I do not 
believe can happen, but that unless that happens there will not be 
additional funding for this project, then I think that is a very wise 
statement and it would render the amendment unnecessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, and 
I appreciate the commitment from the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Are there any further amendments?


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 218, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order:
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews);
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Andrews

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 289, 
noes 141, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 248]

                               AYES--289

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--141

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Everett
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Morella
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Packard

[[Page H4783]]


     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brown (CA)
     DeFazio
     Fletcher
     Gilchrest

                              {time}  1430

  Messrs. MILLER of Florida, HASTINGS of Washington, ADERHOLT, 
KINGSTON, KASICH, HAYES, BRYANT, SMITH of Michigan, and SHADEGG changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HILL of Montana, FORBES, YOUNG of Alaska, DeMINT, DUNCAN, 
SALMON, GEORGE MILLER of California, DICKEY, FOSSELLA, STEARNS, 
MOLLOHAN and METCALF and Mrs. EMERSON changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1430


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 218, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Rogan

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 190, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 249]

                               AYES--241

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brown (CA)
     DeFazio
     Gilchrest

                              {time}  1438

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to the bill?


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:
       Section __. Amend paragraph ``Capital investment Grants'' 
     by striking ``$2,451,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$1,470,600,000''. On page 26, line 15, strike 
     ``$980,400,000'' and insert ``$0''.

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered read and printed in 
the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against the 
amendment because the author seeks to amend a paragraph that has 
already been read under the 5-minute rule.
  The House Rules and Manual clearly state in Section 872 that: ``When 
a paragraph or section has been passed it is not in order to return 
thereto.''
  This amendment comes too late, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair, 
but in deference to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), Mr. 
Chairman, I ask that he be given several minutes to explain his 
amendment.

[[Page H4784]]

                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Did I understand my 
friend from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) to raise a point of order against the 
amendment but requests unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith) might have 2 minutes to explain his amendment 
before a ruling by the Chair?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) has he made a point of order or has he simply reserved a point of 
order?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve a point of order in deference 
to the gentleman, and then I will make the point of order after the 
gentleman has an opportunity to explain.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved, and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and I had introduced. I understand 
that TEA-21 might be a reason for claiming it out of order. In 
addition, it amends page 26 of the bill.
  Let me just briefly tell the body our concern with spending millions 
of dollars for new fixed-rail starts. This amendment, if passed, would 
have saved $980 million. What happens is, these new subway systems, 
these new fixed-rail systems are not paying their way. They are 
extremely expensive.
  I am going to say this very quickly and very briefly. It is an issue 
that should concern us all. I understand that most of these new starts 
are Republican projects, but a Department of Transportation study has 
found that subsidies for building and operating mass transit rail 
programs cost between $4,800 and $17,000 annually for each rider.
  Then, after we build the system, we continue to subsidize them. We 
have increased the Federal Government's cost share because local 
communities are not interested in putting in 50 percent of the cost. I 
think it is an issue that we need to consider. We need to look about us 
as we are threatened with spending the Social Security surplus money. 
It is a special challenge to each one of us to make sure we be very 
frugal. There is not a single mass transit rail system in the U.S. that 
covers its operating cost with fares.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Are there any further amendments to the bill?
  If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the Committee 
rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Foley) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2084) making 
appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 218, he reported the bill back 
to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

                              {time}  1445

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 429, 
nays 3, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 250]

                               YEAS--429

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--3

     Chenoweth
     Paul
     Royce

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brown (CA)
     DeFazio
     Gilchrest

[[Page H4785]]



                              {time}  1503

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________