Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, over 65 years ago, Davis-Bacon passed the Congress, named after a Republican Member of the House and a Republican Secretary of Labor. It has served good public policy for 65 years. Some want to change it. I would simply say to those who want to change it, go through the committees, bring it to the floor and let us debate it on its merits. We cannot do that in 10 minutes today. What does this bill do? It suspends Davis-Bacon in the District of Columbia on certain construction contracts subject to the desire of the contracting officer. Let me say that again. We are going to change 65 years of public policy in this country subject to the desires and whims of a contracting officer in the District of Columbia; not any elected body, not even the control board, but a contracting officer. What a horrendous way to run this place. This provision does not belong in this bill. Let us take it out. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens]. (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for his kind comments. I have no further requests for time. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, Members come and go. Somebody who has served here for many years now and did an outstanding job is the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], my friend. The gentleman flirted for a while with the notion of running for an institution where speech is unlimited and speeches go on forever. In the House, we are disciplined. Mr. Speaker, being that the gentleman decided not to run for that institution with endless speeches, and the fact that I have 23 minutes left and I need to reserve 2 minutes for the ranking member of the full committee, I yield 21 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], and we are going to test to see what kind of discipline the gentleman has to not use it all.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the chairman of the subcommittee, for his good work. This is a good bill. He has done an outstanding job chairing this subcommittee. He has been fair and worked hard at it. It is a product that we should pass by a huge margin today. Let me also acknowledge all of the staff mentioned by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], both majority and minority, who worked very hard on this bill. It is an outstanding staff, and they do outstanding work. Let me particularly mention Cheryl Smith and the minority staff and Marge Duske on my personal staff who have worked on this bill, along with all the majority staff members and associate staff as doing outstanding work. We deeply appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, let me just highlight a couple of issues. When this bill passed the House I expressed concern that we were underfunding the operating account for Amtrak. The conference report that is back today funds Amtrak at the level requested by the administration. I think that was a good change from what the House passed and represents a significant improvement in this bill. Second, at the point this bill went to conference we moved to instruct the conferees to stay with the House position of $200 million for operating costs of transit agencies in this country. The House had $200 million in its original bill. The conference report maintains $150 million, which is 75 percent of that amount, and, in addition, it has a provision allowing transit agencies to use some of the capital money for maintenance costs, which previously they have had to use operating dollars for. So in essence, this bill complies with the instructions given by the House at the point that we went to conference. It is a good bill, and I urge Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. This motion simply instructs the conferees to insist on the $200 million included in the House bill for transit operating assistance. In my judgment, we have cut operating assistance too much already over the years. Unfortunately, the Senate has no funding for operating assistance, and this motion simply insists that the conferees stay with the decision adopted by the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, Minnesota lost a passionate voice for social and economic justice when Gary Sudduth, the Minneapolis Urban League president, died suddenly this week at age 44. His untimely death strikes a blow to the community and efforts to make our cities better places to live, work, and learn. For years, Gary's reputation as an effective force for social change was well-known, not only in Minnesota, but across the Nation. In the process, he touched and improved the lives of millions. Gary was born and raised on the north side of Minneapolis with his eight brothers and sisters. He continued to live there until his death. In 1977, he joined the Minneapolis Urban League, and I first knew him as the young, active director of its juvenile advocate program. Later, he became director of the Street Academy and then vice president of community outreach and advocacy programs. In 1992, was named president and chief executive officer. Throughout his tenure, Gary united people from all walks of life to focus on a common goal--improving the social and economic conditions for people in urban areas. He know how to negotiate with his adversaries and to prod his friends--all in the name of implementing policies that would revitalize cities and benefit their inhabitants. At the same time, he sought longlasting solutions for problems, not quick fixes. Above all, he listened and he led, sustained by the belief that every problem had a solution. Gary demanded fairness, excellence, and accountability from the Government, from our schools and from the legal system. He challenged the establishment and the status quo to accomplish the changes he saw necessary--all the while speaking out for minorities, the poor, and for children. His moderating style and negotiating skills often brought calm, compromise, and peace to Minneapolis at times when crisis and unrest threatened to destabilize it. It will be difficult for the community to replace the talents and drive of Gary Sudduth, who made the work of the Urban League his mission. The way he lived his life was an example for us all--in fact it was his greatest asset. The city of Minneapolis, the State of Minnesota, and indeed the Nation are better off for his commitment and his contributions. That is his enduring legacy. I hope his example has inspired a new generation of leaders and urban advocates who will try to emulate his life's work.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a matter that was not included in the energy and water appropriations bill, but which I believe deserves further consideration, perhaps in conference. Our Nation's electrical transmission grid is strained to the point where blackouts and brownouts are occurring at critical times. This is a matter of life and death for older people and those in poor health, whose life can be threatened when faced with high temperatures and a lack of air-conditioning. There is a potential solution to this transmission problem. A consortium of utilities and high technology companies have developed new transmission cables that can carry twice the electricity of today's cables, thereby alleviating the overload problem without having to install new rights-of-ways. The technology is called aluminum matrix composites, and I hope that the final bill will give the Department of Energy enough flexibility to consider funding this project.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the chairman that this bill in no way would affect the ability of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to address the funding formulas under ISTEA.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. Let me start by saying to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] that he has done an outstanding job chairing this committee. I think he ran very good hearings. They were fair, they were to the point, but they were also tough. At times he pushed the administration hard on certain issues. When he did, I thought it was appropriate. He has been fair in writing this bill, and we appreciate that fairness. He has conducted his year as chairman of this subcommittee this year as a real pro. We appreciate the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. He has done great work. He mentioned all the staff, the majority and minority, who worked on this committee. I would share his sentiments toward them. They worked hard, they are knowledgeable, they are open and fair and worked well with each other. I simply say thank you to all of them for myself and for the minority. The majority staff has been very open and very good to work with. Mr. Chairman, the bill itself is one I intend to vote for. It has important funding for whole hosts of transportation programs and projects throughout the country that make important investment in our country's infrastructure. I must say I have two reservations about the bill, one that I do not expect to change, one that I hope will change as we go through the legislative process. I am concerned that we are reducing transit operating subsidies to $200 million. That is a significant reduction from the current level of funding. The level of capital assistance has been going down over a period of years. On the other hand, the bill is $200 million more than requested by the administration for operating assistance. The committee mark is significantly better than what the administration has recommended, and for that I am thankful, but I am concerned with what that reduction is going to do in very important marginal funding for many transit agencies around the country. My one concern that I hope we can deal with before this bill comes back from conference is funding for Amtrak. In my judgment, that remains a very major problem in this bill. There is very significant funding for capital expenditures by Amtrak. That clearly will help their capacity to develop revenue and ridership in the years ahead. The problem, however, is that the level of operating assistance for Amtrak for the next year is so low that it brings into question whether Amtrak will survive the year. It is an issue and I know the chairman shares my concern that that is not what we want to have happen, and I am hopeful that before this bill comes back to the House again in conference that we can make adjustments to make sure that Amtrak survives the year and goes on. They provide very important, crucial transportation services in this country. Ridership is going up, revenues are going up. It is not a system in decline. They have had problems in part because of what Congress has decided in the past as it relates to operating assistance and requirements on route structures they maintain, particularly what we did last year where we put some mandates on them and did not provide enough money to pay for those mandates. But clearly our assistance to Amtrak for operations for the balance of this year, in my judgment it needs to be increased before the bill goes to the President for his signature. Other than that, I think it is a good bill and it is one that I hope the Members will vote for. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Sometimes I think we keep fighting old fights. We are fighting the problems of Gramm-Rudman. That is long passed. The reality is that the budget enforcement mechanisms of 1990, extended to 1993 and extended this year, work. Discretionary spending caps, with some flexibility for emergencies, worked. The pay-as-you-go provisions that are current law as they relate to new entitlements have worked. What cannot work under our current law unfortunately and is not solved by the Minge-Barton bill are the structures of tax cuts that explode beyond the 5-year limit. Those games are being played with backloaded IRA's and capital gains that explode in the outyears. Current provisions cannot prevent it. Unfortunately the current proposal before us solves none of that problem. The only way we can deal with that problem, where we have backloaded tax cuts that explode in the future, is to say no to those kinds of proposals when they come before the House. The proposed bill does not solve that problem because it is a 5-year bill. And if we extend it beyond 5 years, we then have new baselines from which we are operating. I urge defeat of this bill. Do not undo a system that is working with ration and reason today.