Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. Also, the American Consulting Engineers Council, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the Associated General Contractors of America, the American Institute of Architects, The National Society of Professional Engineers, the American Society of Landscape Architects, the Council of Federal Procurement of Architectural Engineering Services, the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping, the National Utility Contractors, they all urge a no. Mr. Chairman, let me tell Members what AASHTO says. AAHSTO says the amendment is sweeping and would include everything from engineering and design and management, consultant contractors, and at the low threshold of $500,000 it would mean that most activities carried out by the State would not be effective. They said implementation of the amendment would require a whole array of procedures at the State and Federal level which would impose significant costs and delays in project development. It would make it impossible to utilize private sector resources. It is opposed by the State departments of New York, New Jersey, Texas, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Montana, and others. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. But if we do not know the profitability, we do not know whether or not it could default. Therefore, if it defaults, as it happened one other time, everybody is obligated. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. About the railroad.

Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, there has been a default. There has been one. Second, we know absolutely nothing at all about the railroad, absolutely, positively, categorically nothing.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I tell the gentleman, we did look at it. We later found out that 90 percent of this is in Congressman Hunter's district. Second, we looked into the whole issue. And one of the reasons for opposing it is that it provides funding for loan guarantees. However, there is not appropriation made to administer the program. It is a technical law which may violate the Credit Reform Act. Third, there is the hope that the funds would be used for a local project in San Diego, when the project does not have local consensus, because I understand Mr. Hunter opposes it and I believe the gentleman from California, Mr. Packard, opposes it. Under the section 511 loan guarantee program, if railroads are unable to repay these loans, the Federal Government is responsible. If the railroad cannot pay for them, the Federal Government is responsible for paying for them. I do not favor placing the Federal Government at risk. Finally, although the loan guarantees are portrayed as inexpensive, Members should be aware that if the railroad defaults on a loan, the costs could be very, very high. So the area is divided. It is mainly in Mr. Hunter's district. We did look into it. It is a loan guarantee program. A default means that everybody in the country pays. And, therefore, I strongly oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment to ensure that the mass transit account of the Highway Trust Fund is used solely for capital and capital-related expenses in the transit formula of the grant program. It simply increases the general fund in the transit formula program while decreasing the trust fund share of the program each by $30 million. The amendment does not change the amount available for transit operating nor does it change the outlays scored against the bill. The intent of the amendment simply corrects an inadvertent estimating error by the Federal Transit Administration, and it has the support of the chairman of the authorizing committee, and I ask that the amendment be adopted.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I just want the body to know, though, that this is the IG that broke the story that was in Business Week 3 weeks ago showing that many of the major airlines unknowingly are using bogus parts that are potentially very dangerous. What if she did not have the money to do that and we did not know and an airplane crashed? This is the IG that has been the subject of raising very valid issues with regard to ValuJet. I take the gentleman at his word, but having been a Government employee, having worked for the Government for a number of years, believe me, it would be chilling if one were a Government employee.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. First of all it does not put the money in training. It can be used for coffee, cokes, travel, or anything else. Second, it would viewed as a way of punishing the inspector general for giving the opinions that Congress may not like. I have not always agreed with the IG's of the Department. But if they start doing that and we do not like what they have done, it looks like we are punishing the IG for their opinions which could be a grave mistake. We ask for them to be impartial, we ask for them to be independent, we ask for tough opinions, and then if we punish them, the political process stands this whole ethical thing upside down. This would undermine the IG process, not only in this department but governmentwide. It would send a devastating message to IG's everywhere. They would say, ``Uh-oh. We give a report, they don't like it, we better be careful, we're going to get a budget cut. It would be very, very bad. Don't rock the boat. They're going to offer an amendment. They're going to cut my appropriations.'' If we adopt this amendment, we are punishing the IG who raised the whole issue of ValuJet. Maybe the FAA should have listened to here before they did it. You recall Secretary Pena got up and said ValuJet is wonderful. They went on and on. this IG is the one who brought this to our attention. Second, this is the IG that brought out the training problems which ended up in Gregory may, New Age cult-like, going to jail. This IG, for those of you who fly, is the one who found out and raised the issue of bogus parts, that are now being used in major airlines which may very well result in airplanes crashing. This IG is the one that came out with the diversion of money from airports around the country. I just think it would be sending a message to the American people that here is an IG that the gentleman, and I know he does not mean this in a mean-spirited way, does not agree with her, maybe there are times that I will not agree with her, but just because they come up with this idea, you punish them. The IG's budget is not fat. In fact over the past 3 years the IG has taken a 40-percent reduction in administrative staff, more than any other part of the Department of Transportation. Let me just say it again. The IG has taken a bigger hit than any other area of the Department of Transportation. They have taken an overall cut of 11 percent in staffing. Again, more than any other area. They have met the President's downsizing goals 3 years ahead of schedule. In fact, this administration, some may say, has been unfair to the IG. This is what she said during the hearings: We led the department in meeting the Vice President's reinventing government downsizing goals. Instead of being rewarded for that, we were on many cases heaped with more cuts. We think those additional cuts were unfair because we willingly, and quite in advance of the rest of the department, took those cuts that the rest of the government was supposed to be taking. Unfortunately, it only worked to our disadvantage. It is lean, it is careful, the appropriation is already 2 percent below last year's level, 1 percent below the administration's request. Keep in mind, OMB already reduced the IG's request for the internal budget process by $1.4 million. I know what the gentleman is trying to do, or at least I think I do, but this would be chilling. If this were to pass, no IG in the government could ever honestly and legitimately feel that they could give an honest opinion, because then they know that when their budget comes up, that if somebody were angry at them, that they were going to cut their budget. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment. We can almost argue that this is a major safety issue. This is a safety amendment, in some respects. The gentleman's amendment does not put it in training. It can be used for bonuses, it can be used for anything else. This IG's office has been the one on ValuJet, the one on bogus parts and on many others, and I urge the defeat of the amendment because we do not want to punish anybody for being honest and courageous and candid.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman bringing this to our attention. As the committee proceeds in its oversight of the Coast Guard's budget, we will review the practices that he highlighted.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo] bringing this to our attention. Coming originally from Philadelphia, I spent all of my summers down in Wildwood. The fact is I worked as a beach boy selling umbrellas in Wildwood one year, and I also worked in the amusement park in North Wildwood there, so I know the area that the gentleman is talking about. I appreciate him bringing this to my attention. This year we are going to vacation, though, in Avalon. But the language that was included in the budget request is a way to save money. We were not made aware of the local opposition to the coast Guard's proposal until the gentleman brought it to my attention. I understand the serious consequence of the proposal. I want to assure the gentleman that I will do whatever is necessary to address this problem in a manner that protects the normal GSA property disposal procedure and is satisfactory to the local community by the time this bill comes out of conference with the Senate. I thank the gentleman for his hard work on this matter. In fact, if it were not for the gentleman bringing this to our attention, this could have sailed by. Without his intervention, I am sure the Coast Guard proposal would have received little scrutiny or analysis. Now that we are aware of the problem, we will work over the coming weeks with the gentleman and his staff to satisfy the community's concern as we work toward a final solution. I would tell the gentleman, when he gets to Avalon, the best bake shop in Avalon is Kohler's. And if he gets a chance, stop by Kohler's.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is right, and just to make a couple of comments. We, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] and I, working in a bipartisan way, the number one issue again that we dealt with was safety, safety whether it be Amtrak or safety whether it be the FAA. Second, we did not fund the Northeast Corridor because Amtrak has about $466 million that they have not used. The gentleman raises a very good point, though, and I want to just put it on the record and maybe to go even a little further than the gentleman did. Amtrak will not make it unless there is a dedicated revenue source, and I agree with the gentleman. There is one thing, though, that I would caution on, and I have not looked at that legislation. There ought to be a half penny, a half cent for Amtrak, but it ought not be in competition coming out of mass transit. If we begin to do that, we are then going to be pitting the gentleman from Philadelphia, Mr. Foglietta, and New York, and Chicago, and L.A., and San Francisco, and Houston, et cetera, et cetera, against Amtrak. So if we are going to have a half a cent dedicated, it has to be done in such a way that it does not come out of mass transit. There is the opportunity for the one-half cent, but without a dedicated revenue source, Amtrak will not be able to rely on the appropriation process and it is going to fail. So if there is not one- half cent, Amtrak is going to do under.

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

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, he is exactly right. One study showed that when asked, in one area there were 34 percent of the children using drugs, and their parents were asked did they think drug use was around, and only 14 percent though drug use was around. So it is coming back big time, and spiking up. I thank the gentleman for raising this issue.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I pledge I will give it every serious consideration. I commend the gentleman for his interest in this. I think Congress ought to know that the number of high school kids that are using drugs is probably much higher than we actually think. We had a drug conference in my district this past weekend with General McCafferey and a number of other people. In some of the schools, the use of drugs is up to 60 and 65 percent. Drugs are running rampant in this country. I do not know what the gentleman said is the best idea, but I will give it every consideration. I think the Congress, though, in dealing with this issue, ought to also look at the possibility of setting up strike forces which will go down into South America, into Bolivia, into Colombia, and into Peru, and seize the leaders of these drug cartels and bring them back to the United States, and put them on trial. But I commend the gentleman for his efforts, and the effort of the gentleman from New Hampshire, [Mr. Zeliff]. As the gentleman knows, we did note some of his concern and included certain items in the committee report. I will give this serious consideration.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I share the interest of the gentleman from California. However, I am concerned that streamlining these reports could jeopardize or change the current levels of safety. As the gentleman knows, safety has been personally my number one and the number one issue for the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman]. I believe the Department should include this aspect in its review, and the committee looks forward to receiving the information from the Department of Transportation and working with the gentleman from California.

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