[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 124 (Friday, October 6, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H9014-H9018]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4475,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2001
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 612 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 612
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 4475) making appropriations for the Department of
Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. All points
of order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The Conference report shall be
considered as read.
Sec. 2. House Resolutions 586, 592, 595, 599, and 600 are
laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall); pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
[[Page H9015]]
(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 612 is a standard
conference report rule providing for consideration of the conference
report to accompany H.R. 4475, the Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2001.
The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and
against its consideration. Additionally, the rule provides that the
conference report shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule lays
House Resolutions 586, 592, 595, 599, and 600 on the table.
Mr. Speaker, whether cross-town or cross-country, by car, train or
plane, ensuring the safety and efficiency of our transportation
networks is one of the Federal Government's highest responsibilities.
The conference report accompanying H.R. 4475 continues the Republican
Congress' focus on safety for all modes of transportation.
This bill improves and invests in the Nation's infrastructure and
safety by targeting funds to critical programs such as air traffic
control modernization, airport improvement grants, motor carrier
safety, and increasing investments in highway safety research.
The bill enhances the safety and capacity of the aviation system and
the highway and rail networks. It makes runway prevention systems and
devices eligible for airport improvement funds and directs the FAA to
make such requests for discretionary funding the highest priority.
Under this bill, air traffic services continue to make up an integral
part of aviation safety.
The bill provides a total of nearly $17.8 billion in discretionary
budget authority for our Nation's infrastructure and transportation
safety, including the Federal Aviation Administration, transit program
spending, the United States Coast Guard, and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
The bill includes $279 million for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, an increase of more than 50 percent from last year's
levels, to improve the safety of the trucks of our Nation's roads. The
underlying legislation also increases investments to critical highway
safety research and development of smart vehicle technologies.
Another significant piece of the Transportation Appropriations is to
fund the drug interdiction activities carried out by the U.S. Coast
Guard. The bill provides for $565 million for these activities, helping
the men and women of the Coast Guard prevent addictive and deadly
narcotics from ever reaching our shores, let alone our neighborhoods
and school yards.
Additionally, the bill meets the funding obligations for the highway
and aviation accounts, as prescribed under TEA-21 and AIR-21
reauthorization bills. These programs are critical to improvements and
modernization of our roadways and our airways, providing desperately
needed funds across the Nation.
The bill also contains an increase in funding for pipeline safety, an
increase of 25 percent over last year.
I am also pleased the underlying bill makes available a $2 million
continuing appropriation for the Rochester Genesee Regional
Transportation Authority bus project, an important public
transportation project that will serve my district and region. It also
contains an additional appropriation for reverse commuting that will
help those most in need to reach their jobs, wherever they may be,
demonstrating our commitment to better, safer public transportation.
Similarly, the conference report provides much needed funding of $2
million for the Niagra Falls Transportation Authority in the Buffalo
area. Under this legislation, Western New York will be able to be
better served with more reliable and safe bus transportation and
improve job access and reverse commute efforts.
Mr. Speaker, safety should remain the Federal Government's highest
responsibility in the transportation area, and clearly this bill
addresses those needs and concerns.
In conclusion, I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, for their hard
work in bringing this measure before the House today. I would also like
to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the
Subcommittee on Transportation, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Sabo), the ranking member, for their hard work and continued commitment
to our Nation's infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying measure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Reynolds) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, this rule will waive all points of order against the
conference report to accompany H.R. 4475. This is the bill that makes
appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related
agencies in the year 2001.
Mr. Speaker, the bill funds much of the Nation's transportation
infrastructure. It includes money for the construction, the
maintenance, the operation of highways, airports, public transit
systems and Amtrak. It also supports transportation safety and research
for all modes.
The bill spends $3.5 billion in discretionary spending, more than
last year. This is an investment that will pay off in safer and more
efficient transportation for most Americans.
The conference agreement sets a national standard for drunken
driving. Drivers will be considered legally drunk if they have a blood
alcohol level of 0.8. This standard will save lives and reduce traffic
accidents.
I am also pleased with the bill because it includes funds for the
Centennial of Flight Commission. This is a national commission helping
to coordinate and promote the celebration of the centennial of the
Wright Brothers' first flight. The anniversary will take place in the
year 2003.
The bill also funds programs on the Department of Treasury, Executive
Office of the President, General Services Administration, National
Archives and Records Administration.
This will be the last House vote on the Transportation appropriations
bill under the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) as chairman of the
Subcommittee on Transportation. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf)
will be leaving this particular position of chairman of the
Subcommittee on Transportation in the next Congress.
And despite many of the tensions around here, the Transportation
appropriations bill has emerged largely without partisanship. That is a
tribute to the leadership and fairness of the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo). I join my
colleagues on both sides today in thanking the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Wolf) for a job well done.
This is the way I think in the House of Representatives that we are
to conduct our business, in a very good, very efficient, very
bipartisan way.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall)
have any further speakers?
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who is the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations, former chairman of the committee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that this conference report
demonstrates that people who too frequently promise regular order
should be regarded in the same way that Blaze Starr regarded men who
used the phrase ``trust me.''
The process by which this bill is being brought to the floor is truly
amazing. The normal process, the legislative process is for both Houses
to pass bills. Then we have a conference between the committees
representing both Houses. They produce a document, and then each House
has an opportunity to vote on that document.
If the Senate has adopted amendments out of the normal scope of the
conference, then House Members are protected and authorizing committees
[[Page H9016]]
are protected by having the ability to have a vote on those amendments
on the House floor.
Instead, this rule today takes the conference report on this bill,
and instead of bringing it back as a conference report, it introduces
as a new bill the conference report.
{time} 0945
It then files a report that refers to that conference report. So to
figure out what is in this bill, Members do not have to just go and
look at the document accompanying this conference report, they have to
go look at a second document. It is a two-step operation and it has two
convenient results: Number one, it makes it just a little bit more
difficult for the average rank-and-file Member to figure out what has
been done in the conference; and, secondly, it guts our ability as an
institution to deal with subject matters that individual Members,
rather than a few power brokers in this House, feel that they ought to
have an ability to comment on.
Now, this abuse on this bill would be far less disturbing if it were
not part of a broad pattern of abuse of the legislative process which
is having the effect of depriving the great majority of Members in this
institution in both parties from having a real opportunity to play a
meaningful role in the resolution of these issues.
One Member told me earlier this week that we are evolving into a
system in which no more than 30 or 40 people have any meaningful input
on the major decisions happening here, and nearly half of those people
are staff. That is a sad reality. That means that well over 400 of the
435 Members of this institution are effectively cut out of the process,
and that means 400 congressional districts, representing 200 million
Americans, virtually have little league say, at best, in the decisions
that are made here. And that simply is not fair.
In fact, one Member observed to me that, given the way this House has
approached appropriation bills for the past year, most Members really
do not have to show up in this place for real until October because the
institution spends most of its time passing meaningless resolutions
trying to nail the people on the other side of the aisle on
controversial issues, or else we pass appropriation bills that have no
relationship whatsoever to what is expected to finally be in those
bills when they emerge as a final product. So we debate political press
releases, unfortunately, instead of debating our real convictions on
these bills, and that is a destruction of the process that needs to
stop.
I would note that the reason that this is being done today is simply
to get around Senate rules, because we are apparently afraid that an
individual Senator on the majority side of the aisle is unhappy with
the contents of this bill and wants to read the bill on the floor. Now,
the problem is that this House's rules are being destroyed in order for
us to deal with the Senate rules as an institution, and the leadership
of the House is making that worse.
In the Senate, major appropriation bills in the Senate, major
appropriation bills involving half of the departments of the Federal
Government, were never even taken to the Senate Floor. And we have
gotten so far from the regular order that I fear that if this
continues, the House will not have the capacity to return to the
precedents and procedures of the House that have given true meaning to
the term Representative Democracy. The reason that we have stuck to
regular order as long as we have in this institution is to protect the
rights of every Member to participate. And when we lose those rights,
we lose the right to be called the greatest deliberative body left in
the world.
Last night, for instance, we had, after 2 months of waiting to go to
conference because the majority party leadership was trying to decide
what the contents of the agriculture bill should be, after 2 months we
finally went to conference, after we had a motion to instruct the
committee to have a full-blown conference on the Agriculture bill, and
we had a very meaningful debate in that conference. But even then, at
the end of that conference, we had to have the majority members march
up to the leadership offices to find out what their marching orders
were for the rest of the conference.
Now, I just do not believe that we ought to be proceeding in this
manner. And what I find ironic about this is that the very people in
this institution and in the House leadership who cry the most about
central government power in Washington, are the very same people who
are day by day centralizing power in this institution. And that is not
only wrong, it is dangerous. There needs to be a happy medium between
power that lodges in the hands of individual Members, committees and
the leadership.
I believe that this incredible centralization of decision-making in
the hands of staff in the House leadership offices means that for most
Members representing their districts in this body is diminishing every
day in terms of their ability to have a say in what goes on around
here. And that is the real problem with this rule.
I have problems with the underlying bill. I intend to vote against
it, and I will explain why during the debate on that bill. But even
more important to me is the increasing abuse of process. This House
works best when we take advantage of the expertise that all Members
have in each and every one of our committees. They bring that expertise
to bear. It is leavened by the judgment of the leadership, which is a
perfectly appropriate role.
But when we wind up having the judgment of the leadership come down
like a hammer and prevent committees from doing their work in an
orderly manner, and then they prevent individual Members from having a
say on nongermane Senate amendments, it reminds me of the fights we
used to have when the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Brown) and the Republican counterparts, when the
Republicans were in the minority, used to raise ``you know what''
because all kinds of nongermane amendments were being offered in Senate
and the authorizing committees had no way here to protect themselves.
That is why we built in some of these rules and protections. Today they
have been stripped away in the name of one word: Convenience. There
ought to be a higher standard in this place.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to not disagree with my
friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). This is not the normal
procedure. But I do rise to tell the Members of the House that no
Member of the House is disadvantaged by using this procedure.
The conference report on H.R. 4475, and the new bill that is numbered
H.R. 5394, are identical. The language of the new bill has been
available to the Members at the same time as the conference report on
H.R. 4475 because it is printed in the statement of the managers. So no
Member of the House has been disadvantaged.
As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out, this was
done to accommodate the other body. Whether that is the best procedure
or not, it has been done before, but it is not really the regular
order. The main issue here is Members of the House have not been
disadvantaged by this procedure. The words in the copy of the bill in
the statement of the managers on the conference report and the new bill
are identical and they have been available to the House Members.
Members are not disadvantaged because of timing and thus disadvantaged
because of the language in the introduced bill.
So I think we ought to go ahead and pass this rule, and then I think
we ought to go ahead and pass this conference report. As usual, as many
Members often say, it is not perfect. There are things in there Members
can be opposed to, but there are a lot of good things in there. This
conference agreement provides for the highway needs and the
transportation needs of the United States of America. And I believe,
Mr. Speaker, that we ought to get on with business.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against
H. Res. 612, the rule on the conference report for H.R. 4475, the
FY2001 Transportation Appropriations bill. Like many of my colleagues,
I voted ``no'' to signal my frustration at the chaotic manner in which
this bill was fashioned. I
[[Page H9017]]
would also like to take this opportunity to express an additional
concern I had relating to the National Corridor Planning and
Development Program.
First, let me thank the conferees for including significant
investments for the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) system. I am
pleased that the bill includes my $70 million request for DART to
construct the North Central Light Rail Extension. This funding fulfills
the federal government's commitments under a full funding grant
agreement reached between DART and the Federal Transit Administration
in October, 1999, and will ensure that the North Central extension can
proceed on schedule.
I would also like to thank the conferees for including $2 million for
DART to acquire new buses that will be used throughout the 13 member
jurisdictions within DART's service territory.
I was extremely disappointed, however, that the conferees could not
fund my $12 million request for the I-35 Bridge under the National
Corridor Planning and Development Program. In recognition of the
increased trade and traffic that NAFTA would bring to Texas, I-35 was
designated as a corridor under the National Highway System Designation
Act of 1995. The I-35 Bridge project is necessary to alleviate the
heavy local and trade-related traffic that now traverses the Dallas
area. Although the conferees did include $1.325 million for I-35
construction in the Waco, Texas area, I was disappointed that no
funding was provided for the heavily congested part of I-35 that
traverses Dallas.
Moreover, I am extremely concerned that the State of Texas has again
been short-changed under the National Corridor Planning and Development
Program. Under H.R. 4475, total earmarks for this program total
approximately $95 million. However, only $5.675 million, or less than 6
percent, was targeted toward projects in Texas. Even more disturbing
was that the bill provided funding for two individual projects that
both individually exceed the total amount earmarked for Texas, and that
these two projects are located in states that are not adjacent to
Canada or Mexico.
Thd distribution provided in the National Corridor Planning and
Development Program is fundamentally unfair to Texas. The corridor and
border programs, authorized in TEA-21, were designed specifically to
target assistance to nationally significant roadways that foster
international trade and economic growth and that improve the flow of
commerce at U.S. ports of entry. Texas has four nationally significant
corridors, two of which (I-35 and I-10) carry almost 50 percent of all
NAFTA trucks. Texas border crossings carry nearly 80 percent of
international truck traffic, with 40 percent of this traveling through
the state to other destinations in the U.S. and Canada. However, in the
first two years of the programs, Texas has received only $36 million
out of approximately $245 million, or less than 15 percent. By
decreasing this meager amount to 6 percent, H.R. 4475 certainly goes in
the wrong direction.
Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed in this aspect of the
Transportation Appropriations bill, and I now intend to redouble my
efforts in this area so that future distributions to Texas will be more
equitable.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on
the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244,
nays 136, not voting 53, as follows:
[Roll No. 515]
YEAS--244
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Gary
Mink
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pascrell
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--136
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berry
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Clayton
Coburn
Condit
Costello
Crowley
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Meehan
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Phelps
Price (NC)
Rivers
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--53
Ackerman
Baker
Berman
Blumenauer
Boucher
Cannon
Carson
Clay
Conyers
Crane
Cummings
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dixon
Engel
Eshoo
Foley
Franks (NJ)
Gilchrest
Goss
Hansen
Hefley
King (NY)
Klink
Lazio
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Martinez
McCollum
McIntosh
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Paul
Porter
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rush
Shadegg
Shows
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Spence
Strickland
Vento
Waters
Waxman
Wise
Young (AK)
{time} 1015
Messrs. HILL of Montana, DOGGETT, ALLEN, PASTOR, WATT of North
Carolina, MINGE, and Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. CLYBURN, McNULTY and OLVER changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
[[Page H9018]]
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 515, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________