Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, because of the compelling arguments and also because every time this issue has come up, the gentleman has won overwhelmingly, we accept the amendment.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we accept the amendment and support the amendment. It is the same language as last year.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman that is really unfair to say, though. Metro, your system in Houston, has received over $500 million, any one of those localities would gladly trade places. Some of them are getting mere pittances. And I have been there. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has been the advocate for this from the very, very beginning with regard to the money. So when there is mention of a place in Kansas that is getting a sum, that is really not fair. Houston is getting $500 million.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). And before I comment, let me just say two things: I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the time had gone by and this amendment would have been ruled out of order, and the gentleman could have blocked it and he did not. Secondly, having been on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for these many, many years, no one has done more with regard to mass transit in the Houston area than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). In fact, years ago he asked me to go down to Houston and to look at it, and the rapid bus transit and the concept he has, has really been adopted by the FTA in many, many areas. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has been the advocate and the champion every time we have begun going through this with regard to protecting and gaining the necessary funding from the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Government with regard to funding for the Houston system. The amendment strikes a prohibition in the bill that prohibits the planning, design and construction of light rail in Houston, Texas. This prohibition is necessary as proponents of light rail in Houston seek to alter an existing full funding grant agreement for a bus program. They would like to replace bus elements with the light rail program, and the whole country is actually moving more towards the bus than the light rail. The committee cannot support the amendment of full funding grant agreements which seeks to replace the bus program with rail elements, particularly when the light rail project is still very early in the planning phase. We cannot support the use of commitment authority for such projects so early in the design phase. This too has been the long-term policy of the Federal transmit administration. With that, we would strongly oppose the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2000 DOT Appropriation Act required the Secretary of Transportation to submit along with the 2001 budget request the capital investment plan for the FAA and the Coast Guard. It might surprise many Members to know that although these agencies spend close to $3 billion, ``B'' billion, a year on the capital investments, they do not produce a comprehensive multiyear plan which shows how they plan to achieve their goals over time. They only submit an annual budget which simply does not give us enough information to make good decisions on these substantial investments. Any business this size or, frankly, a lot smaller would hammer out an investment plan as a matter of normal business practice, so we felt it was certainly reasonable for the FAA and the Coast Guard to do the same. So we required the development of these plans in last year's bill. The problem is, the Secretary has ignored the law. None of these plans has ever been submitted. The chairman of the committee, Mr. Chairman, does not ask for reports on a casual basis and it is rare for the committee to put reporting requirements in the bill, but we did in this case because they are important and we intend to ensure that one way or the other the committee's directives are not ignored, not by the FAA or the Coast Guard, and particularly by the Office of the Secretary, and not by the Office of Management and Budget. This should not be controversial. I do not believe that anyone would really have a substantive objection to compelling DOT to follow the law that the Congress has passed.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the point of order.

Mr. WOLF. Hope springs eternal.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the point of order.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we regret that we must oppose the amendment. The committee was not notified about these amendments until 9:00 this morning. The amendments may have significant implications for the Clean Air Act's policies and enforcement. The ramifications, quite frankly, are not even known by the committee, and we really have not had time. I understand what the gentleman is saying, but, regretfully, I must oppose the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment pending be changed by taking out ``Review'' and inserting the word ``Reform'' so that it is in compliance.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we reserve a point of order.

Mr. WOLF. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitute legislation on the appropriations bill; therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we reserve a point of order.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, yes, that is correct. We will be glad to work with the gentleman in setting up a meeting with Ms. Garvey.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would be a killer amendment. Talk about killer amendments, this would be a real killer amendment. This issue has been going on for so long. We have put language in the bill over and over and over, and to say that it is hyperbole when we have the Charlotte Airport, and if they had been able to locate a terminal Doppler down in Charlotte, that accident may not have happened. We had the Little Rock situation. This has been going on. This was a Coast Guard helicopter station and not some serene National Park. For people, anybody who flies into LaGuardia or Kennedy, this is a major, a major safety issue. If this amendment would be adopted, Congress would just be flying in the face of all the aircraft safety. Mr. Chairman, I strongly, if this were to come to a vote, urge Members to just vote against it, or put a big sign up outside of LaGuardia and Kennedy saying, we could have done something to make these airports safer, but because Congress did not act, they are no longer that safe.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Louisiana. I believe the project should not move forward until there is regional consensus reached by all the affected parties. We had a similar situation in my region when we transferred National Airport and Dulles Airport from the Federal Government, one person operating it. We set up a regional authority, whereby there are now people from Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia that operate both National and Dulles Airports. My understanding is that the proposed runway will be completely located in the district of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). That, again, has been a major controversy in this region with regard to noise. The gentleman's cosponsorship of the amendment this morning indicates his consensus has not been achieved. I also believe the DOT Inspector General should examine current management practices at the airport. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and look forward to working with my colleagues on this crucial economic development issue for the citizens of Louisiana.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4475, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.