Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, the rule is a fine rule, and I am not speaking on the rule but I want to speak about an issue that is in the bill. It is with regard to Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project. Let me quote from prior years of the Committee on Appropriations reports: In fiscal year 1994 we stated the committee is concerned over the reports of architectural extravagance in this project, including a sweeping parabolic arch rising 120 feet into the air. Given the austere budget situation facing this country, it is extremely doubtful that taxpayers should contribute to such a project. In fiscal year 1995 the House recommended no funding, because we were in a tight budgetary process. The New York Times has recently quoted State and city officials as saying because of the fiscal problems being experienced by the State and city there is a big question whether or not they will be able to contribute their share of the renovation. So we know the commitment is soft. This year, in the appropriations bill, 1996, the House did not provide any funds for this project. The decision was agreed to by the conference committee. That decision was agreed to by this body only a few weeks ago. However, to address some of the concerns of the project, the conferees provided Amtrak the option to use up to $20 million of its limited Federal dollars to support emergency lifesaving repairs at the existing Penn Station. Now, this thing is beginning to spread out in other ways, and maybe there is an end run to put more money in this project than anyone thought was going to be in the project. I think, and there may be a Hefley amendment offered today, and if it is, I will talk more about it, I think if the Hefley amendment is offered, it ought to be adopted, but I am concerned that everything that the proponents of Penn Station wanted for safety we said we would address and take care of the problems because I did not want anyone to go to Penn Station and be involved in a fire and die or something like that. There now seems to be a method to go around and get additional money and different money. I am asking the inspector general of the Department of Transportation to investigate this, to look into it. I am also looking today, with a letter to the GAO, asking the GAO to investigate and look into it. After we get the information, we can make a decision. But based on where I am today and what I have seen is taking place, and I think this is one of the frustrations that the American people are beginning to have with this whole process, authorizing, appropriation, what you are doing, slipping these things in, going around. I personally am of the opinion, based on the information that I now know, that the Hefley amendment, if it is offered today, should be adopted. Second, I, for one, would not put one red cent, one penny, one nickel, one dime, one more dollar, into this project. I do not want to say specifically, but I think maybe Amtrak has been involved in some activity up here on Capitol Hill, lobbying and doing some things of which we are not quite sure. Let me tell the Members, we are going to scrutinize this. I think the Members ought to be worried. This may be, I am not sure, but it may be kind of the bait and switch and move things around, and Penn Station has been limited whereby we have given money for all the safety projects. Now we see things coming that I think maybe this Congress, if it really knew all the facts, may not be doing what it is in the process of doing. I will speak on this issue if the Hefley amendment comes up. Since fiscal year 1994, the House Appropriations Committee has strongly opposed the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project and recommended not to provide funds for this project. Let me quote from prior years' Appropriations Committee reports: In fiscal year 1994, we stated ``the Committee is concerned over reports of architectural extravagance in this project, including a sweeping parabolic arch rising 120 feet into the air. Given the austere budget situation facing this country, it is extremely doubtful that taxpayers should contribute to such a project.'' In fiscal year 1995, the House recommended no funding for this project because ``in such tight budgetary times, a project of this uncertainty and magnitude is not justified.'' Furthermore, although the administration intends to fence the Federal funds until a binding commitment is signed for the non-Federal funds, at present the only commitment is a memorandum of agreement which does not legally bind any of the non-Federal parties. The New York Times has recently quoted State and city officials as saying that because of the fiscal problems being experienced by the State and city of New York, there is a big question of whether or not they will even be able to contribute their share of the renovation funds. So we know the commitment is soft. This year, in the appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996, the House did not provide funds for this project, a decision agreed to by the conference committee. That decision was agreed to by this body only a few weeks ago. However, to address some of the concerns of the project's supporters, the conferees provided Amtrak the option to use up to $20 million of its limited Federal dollars to support emergency life safety repairs at the existing Penn Station. However, now the National Highway System Act authorizes both the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project and the engineering, design, and construction of a major renovation to the James A. Farley Post Office Building to enable its use as an Amtrak station and retail shopping center. In addition, the same bill provides $26,200,000 in direct funding for this project. Not only is this project controversial and unnecessary, its 11th-hour inclusion in an unrelated bill violates the normal protocol for conference reports. Because of time constraints and the desire to free up billions in highway funds to States, there was very little time for Members to review the conference report. In fact, in the rush this conference report was passed in this body on a Saturday without even a vote. This project was not included in the original version of either Chamber's bill. The addition of this project was improper, I believe, because this bill was for the Federal Highway System. It should not have included authorization or funding for the renovation of a train station and development of retail shops at Federal expense. Let me mention one other concern I have about the Farley Building project. The funding in the NHS bill for this project and the Amtrak reauthorization bill even allows the Federal Government to provide more than our share of the project's cost. Even project supporters say the Federal Government should provide no more than $100 million for this project. The NHS bill brings the total amount up to $77,700,000, and the Amtrak bill authorizes an additional $30,000,000 over the next 3 years, which would bring the Federal share to $107,700,000. As chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I was extremely upset to see these provisions. I had worked long and hard to strike a deal with the Senate, and particular with Senator Moynihan, to limit how taxpayer dollars could be spent on the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project. The sections in the National Highway System bill obliterate congressional intent for this project and does an end-run around the appropriations process. Today, I am sending letters to the General Accounting Office and the Department of Transportation inspector general requesting each of them to analyze the need for such a project, and the existing financial arrangements. If these reports come back next year and support the project, we will certainly look at it again. We owe the project that much, and I will continue to work with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the New York delegation, Amtrak, and others to address the legitimate transportation needs of passengers in New York City. But from what we know now, this is the wrong approach at the wrong time, and too expensive for the Federal Government to bear. In summary, what the National Highway System bill has done is authorized and provided direct funding for the building of what its supporters advertise as an architectural wonder and a new retail shopping area in New York City. Slipped in an unrelated bill in the dead of night, and going around the appropriations process. This was little more than a Thanksgiving gift to the city of New York, and it is a real turkey--with all the trimmings. The gentleman from Colorado's amendment would assure that, in these tight budgetary times, taxpayers all across the country do not see their gasoline taxes going to pay for a new train station and to build new shopping spaces in New York City.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, a group of Members, Republicans and Democrats, have gotten together to try to urge congressional offices and others to donate a Christmas present for the children of residents of D.C. Lorton Reformatory or District jail. This is a program under the auspices of Prison Fellowship and Chuck Colson and a number of offices and congressional wives are doing it. Mr. Speaker, I would urge any Member or staff that is watching to call the office of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] or the office of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], or my office, or call the Prison Fellowship office at 265-4544 to donate a gift for children of parents who are serving either in D.C. Lorton Reformatory or District jail at this time of the year. If these children do not receive a gift this way, many will not receive anything.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I have learned some Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] special agents are accorded Merit System Protection Board [MSPB] appeal rights and others are not. This discriminatory policy offends traditional notions of fairness and should change. It is not fair that some agents receive MSPB appeal rights while others do not. Because of my concern about this policy, today I will introduce legislation, the FBI Due Process Improvement Act, a copy of which appears at the end of my statement. This simple legislation would amend 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(b)(8) by striking ``the Federal Bureau of Investigation,'' thereby extending certain procedural and appeal rights with respect to certain adverse personnel actions to all employees of the FBI. This legislation corrects the current disparate treatment of nonveteran special agents regarding their ability to appeal adverse personnel actions and ensures the due process rights of all employees of the FBI. Special agents of the FBI are loyal civil servants dedicated to protecting Americans from the worst kinds of crime. Their jobs are difficult, demanding, and sometimes dangerous. They are often transferred to posts far from home which demands considerable sacrifice by FBI families. FBI agents are on the front line of the fight against crime. They endeavor to reunite mothers and fathers with their kidnaped children; they work to maintain the high integrity of the American political system by investigating public corruption; they protect all Americans from foreign and domestic terrorism; they risk life and limb infiltrating and thwarting the scourge of organized crime; they help keep drugs out of the hands of America's most vulnerable citizens; they investigate white collar crime, pornography, and a host of countless other Federal criminal offenses. In short, FBI agents are the often unseen but indispensable protectors of tranquility and freedom within the United States. The FBI motto--fidelity, bravery, and integrity-- accurately characterizes the manner in which agents approach their important work. These duties are performed by all agents, veteran and nonveteran alike. However, these two categories of agents receive disparate treatment when charged with misconduct. Military veterans are permitted full due process rights including the ability to appeal adverse personnel actions to the MSPB. In other words, veteran agents, who are in the excepted service, receive the same due process rights that employees in the competitive service receive. Nonveteran agents, also members of the excepted service, do not. This means that a veteran agent will receive an outside, independent, objective review of his/her case while a nonveteran agent will not. Is this fair? I maintain that it is not. Furthermore, female special agents are particularly hit hard by this policy because few have served in the military; thus they are not eligible to receive the MSPB appeal rights that veteran agents, who are predominantly men, do. Also, FBI agents should have the same MSPB appeal rights as Federal law enforcement agents who work for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Drug Enforcement Administration, Customs Service, and Border Patrol. The Congress should eliminate this discriminatory policy because it serves no rational or useful purpose. The Congress should have rectified this disparity in 1990 when it enacted legislation (P.L. 101- 376) which granted appeal rights to members of the excepted service affected by adverse personnel actions. The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, in its report on the bill (H. Rept. 101-328), preserved the disparate treatment between preference eligible veteran agents and other agents because of the FBI's ``sensitive mission.'' However, this conclusion was not supported by any concrete examples about how MSPB appeal rights would adversely affect the FBI's sensitive mission. In fact, if the denial of MSPB appeal rights is so vital to the sensitive mission of the FBI, the prudent course would have been to deny those rights to all agents, including preference eligible agents. Obviously, the grant of MSPB rights to all agents would not adversely impact the FBI's mission. The Bureau has long experience with the MSPB process used by its preference eligible agents, and there have been no reports of abuse of the system. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it has compromised the FBI's sensitive mission. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to maintain the distinction between preference eligible veteran and nonveteran agents. All agents, whether veterans or not, should be treated in a fair and equitable manner. As I have already stated, the FBI has considerable experience with the MSPB process available to veteran agents. I am not aware that there has been any particular abuse of the MSPB process by preference eligible agents. Likewise, I do not anticipate that expansion of MSPB rights to all agents would be burdensome on the FBI. There is no room in the modern FBI for discriminatory personnel policies; therefore, nonveteran agents should receive all the rights and enjoy all the privileges accorded to their preference eligible veteran counterparts. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation. I also urge Congressman Mica, chairman of the House Civil Service Subcommittee, to move this legislation as expeditiously as possible. Finally, I ask unanimous consent to include a copy of this bill and a letter from the FBI Agents' Association in support of this legislation in the record immediately following my statement.

Mr. WOLF

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

Mr. WOLF. To have a balanced budget in 7 years is historic.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, we promised a balanced budget; promises made, promises kept.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. I do want to say it was the President, though, that sent the employees home, and not the Congress. This essential and nonessential is not accurate. Third, this is a balanced budget amendment that most Americans, almost every Member, their constituents support. Fourth, it is 7 years. It is 7 years and no more. It is a promise made and a promise kept. Fifth, I want to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and I want to congratulate the Republican leadership for the effort. I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio [John Kasich], for his work in negotiating this. I was pleased that Federal employees will continue to be paid, in this case, as they have been in the past.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. I am for a balanced budget by the year 2002. But let me bring it back to something that people are concerned about around the country, and that is the pay issue. I want to read a letter that I received from Speaker Gingrich. I want to read it slowly and also from Majority Leader Bob Dole. He said: ``Dear Frank,'' and my name is Frank. We will be sending soon to President Clinton a bill to continue funding for the federal government through December 1, 1995. Besides providing for government services, this bill also funds federal workers' salaries. If the President decides to veto this vital legislation to keep government operating, the possibility exists that some federal works may be furloughed. In the event that this takes place, it is our commitment that federal employees will not be punished as a direct result of the President's decision to veto funding for their salaries. Should this happen, we are committed to restoring any lost wages in a subsequent funding bill. Again, we want to reassure you that if the President vetoes the continuing resolution and requires federal workers to be furloughed, we are committed to restoring any lost wages retroactively. I want to say this: A promise made is a promise kept. There has been a promise made. There has been a commitment made. And we are obligated to keep it. I expect it to be kept. I believe it will be kept because it must be kept.

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

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. WOLF. They should be back, and I will tell the gentleman, the administration's definition of essential and nonessential really does not make any sense.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. That is why the American people cannot stand this place and cannot stand this town. That is not what I said. I said we are doing tonight a continuing resolution to keep the Government open and merely saying to the President that we can come together in a bipartisan way. We throw the word ``bipartisan'' around this body. Very few people seem to meet it in this town. It says we will come together in a bipartisan way to try to reach a balanced budget in the year 2002. It does not say, it does not say how. It just says when, and the year is the year 2002.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. Quite frankly, this body has become a partisan pit, and this town has become a partisan pit. There are Members on our side who think we have too much. I think they are wrong. There are Members on this side who think we are asking too much of the President. I think you are wrong. Merely what this does, it says in 7 years the President shall commit. It does not say how to reach a balanced budget, and I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the chairman, talked about Gramm- Rudman and all those things. I understand. What he said may have had some points. The times have changed. The American people, both Republicans and Democrats and liberals and conservatives, want a balanced budget. So all we are doing tonight, and I would say to both sides, come together, work together, all we are doing tonight is voting to open up the government tomorrow so the social security checks can go out, the veterans can get their things and all the government workers can go back to work then the President says, ``Yes, I agree,'' as he said many other times, that we are going to have a balanced budget in 7 years. It does not say how; it does not say how; it does not say how. it just says when, and when is the year 2002.

Mr. WOLF. I urge support of the resolution.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, many have asked what will happen to Federal employees. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] and the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] and I asked the CRS to give us a paper on what has happened in the past. No Federal employee has ever lost a dollar. I want to read the text of a letter we received today from the Speaker and also the majority leader, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Dole]. It said: We will be sending soon to President Clinton a bill to continue funding for the Federal Government through December 1, 1995. Besides providing for government services, this bill also funds Federal workers' salaries. If the President decides to veto this vital legislation to keep government operating, the possibility exists that some Federal workers may be furloughed. In the event that this takes place, it is our commitment that Federal employees will not be punished as a direct result of the President's decision to veto funding for their salaries. Should this happen, we are committed to restoring any lost wages in a subsequent funding bill. Again, we want to reassure you that if the President vetoes the continuing resolution and requires Federal workers to be furloughed, we are committing to restoring any lost wages retroactively. That has been the way we have handled it in the past and that is the way we will handle it this time. Mr. Speaker, I submit the letter referred to for the Record: Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, November 10, 1995. Hon. Frank Wolf, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Frank: We will be sending soon to President Clinton a bill to continue funding for the federal government through December 1, 1995. Besides providing for government services, this bill also funds federal workers' salaries. If the President decides to veto this vital legislation to keep government operating, the possibility exists that some federal workers may be furloughed. In the event that this takes place, it is our commitment that federal employees will not be punished as a direct result of the President's decision to veto funding for their salaries. Should this happen, we are committed to restoring any lost wages in a subsequent funding bill. Again, we want to reassure you that if the President vetoes the continuing resolution and requires federal workers to be furloughed, we are committed to restoring any lost wages retroactively. Sincerely, Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House. Bob Dole, Senate Majority Leader.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] for offering this amendment. This is our chance to help the students in the District of Columbia. Mr. Chairman, my daughter taught for a year in the District of Columbia. I want to tell you, the schools are not doing very well. We are losing young people year after year after year. If I were a parent and had children in the District of Columbia schools, I would want this bill so badly, and no one in this body should oppose this bill. Mr. Chairman, how many Members of this Congress, Republican and Democrat, who live in this region have their children in the District of Columbia schools? The answer is probably few or maybe none. I commend the Speaker. I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson]. If this bill goes down, you will lose children. To vote against the Gunderson amendment is to vote against the young men and boys and girls in this school, in this District of Columia. None of you would send your kids to these schools. None of you would send your kids to these schools. This is a good bill. The Gunderson amendment is a good amendment. The Speaker should be commended. It will disgrace this body if this amendment fails.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of the American family, America's children, and restoring the American dream and will support budget reconciliation which will bring our burgeoning budget deficit into balance by the year 2002 and provide needed family tax relief. This is the right thing to do. Consider this. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, a child born today will have to pay $187,000 in his or her lifetime in interest on the national debt. That money won't be spent on education, nutrition, medical research, national defense, or roads. Rather, our children will be forced to pay for the present generation's profligacy. That is unfair; it is unwise; and it offends traditional notions of justice. For all the things the 104th Congress will do, this is the most important. We are at a historic crossroads, and I will choose the path of lower interest rates, lower taxes, and job creation, thereby preserving America's greatness for present and future generations. It is time to end the gluttonous consumption of America's precious and scarce resources. We can ill afford the relentless spending and borrowing [[Page E 2068]] binge of the past which mortgages the future of America's most precious resource--her young people--because we are unwilling to exercise restraint needed to forego immediate gratification. We have a solemn duty to provide a better world for future generations. Will Allen Dromgoole, in his poem ``The Bridge Builder,'' describes an old man's effort to cross a river flowing through a vast, deep, and wide chasm. Even though the old man never had to repeat the treacherous journey, he built a bridge over the river. A fellow traveler asked the old man why he was wasting his strength building a bridge he would never use. The builder lifted his old gray head and responded: There followeth after me today A youth, whose feet must pass this way. This chasm, that has been naught to me, To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be. He, too, must cross in the twilight dim; Good friend, I am building the bridge for him. Mr. Chairman, I implore all Members to be like the selfless bridge builder and vote for this legislation which will build a bridge to a better world for those who follow.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to let the Members know that we now have 92 cosponsors on our bill to create a national commission to study the impact of gambling in the United States. Twenty years ago only two States had gambling. Now almost every State but Hawaii and Utah has gambling. This is a bipartisan bill. We have the majority whip and the minority whip. It is time we pass it, whereby we can have a study to see, is there a problem of corruption? We know corruption does follow. Is there a problem of crime? Is there a problem of organized crime? Is there a problem of teenage addiction? Let us find out. Let us have a national commission to examine it. The bill is being cosponsored in the Senate by Senator Simon from Illinois, and Senator Lugar from Indiana. We hope to pass it in the House this year and pass it in the Senate this year. I urge all my colleagues who are not cosponsors, please call my office today to cosponsor the bill, H.R. 497, National Commission to Study the Impact of Gambling.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to the bill, H.R. 2002, and that I may be permitted to include tabular and extraneous matter.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], a member of the committee.