Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise again in opposition to the amendment. The point that it does not save any money has been made. Also, a number of these communities have been fairly hard hit by base closings. I have a community in my own district, and we do not have an airport so it is not involved in this. But I know how hard hit the community was. To do this to them would be inappropriate. I would ask that there be a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], chairman of the authorizing committee.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I was not going to say much, but I heard some of the stuff, and I just have to. I come from a blue-collar family background. My dad was a policeman in the city of Philadelphia, helped start the Fraternal Order of Police; my mom worked in a cafeteria; and if my colleagues wanted to match blue-collar pedigrees, I will do it with just about any of them. When I hear about people who are working with their hands, Jesus worked with his hands. He was a carpenter. I mean my colleagues are inferring that we do not care about people who work with their hands. That is not right, and my colleagues know it is not right. There are a lot of people though who come and can afford the transit. There are neighborhoods whereby, if the transit stops after 10 o'clock at night, they cannot get home when they are working a 4-to-12 shift. That is what we are trying to do, to allow the transit to have the burden. A young person in my district that lives out in the western end that comes into the Vienna stop pays $3.25 to take the ride in from Vienna, $3.25 back out, and $2 to park. A single parent with kids has a hard time doing that. That is what we are trying to get control of. I heard the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] speak, and I have great respect for the gentleman. Frankly, if there was a 13(c) for rich CEO's, I will repeal it with the gentleman. If he wanted to offer it, I will get down there and repeal it. I agree they have too-high salaries, but I also agree the transit fares are too high because many working people cannot afford it. In closing the debate it is really this: 13(c) was put in years ago, and it was a good law. It has now been abused. I do not know if we are going to be successful or not, but I tell my colleagues we have at least generated debate. If we are successful, that is going to be good for transit riders. If we are unsuccessful, I believe the committee and all of my colleagues who have spoken so eloquently, who I all respect and personally like, now have a obligation, an obligation not to be a phony, but to be real, and take this up, and reform it, and pass it whereby we can do these things, and I know many of my colleagues spoke eloquently and many of them or most are my friends, and I believe that we will do that. The issue is vote ``no'' on Coleman, which really does not want to do anything because the act says his reform is meaningless. Vote ``yes'' on Wolf. Help keep the fares down, and help make it so working men and women can get to work without being driven out of business.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I urge strong support for the substitute. Your reform is basically worthless. Before you vote on it, read the letter from APTA. It says the Coleman reform is basically worthless. Third, I support collective bargaining rights and they would all come back into play. Fourth, everyone knows what is going on here. Basically on this vote we are going to vote on whether or not we want to lift a little bit of the burden on the working poor and the people that live in the inner city and ride mass transit. Just read the letters. Read the letters from the transits. Just read them and look at the list. This is the last chance frankly if this thing does not go for Members to come back to the floor and say, ``I want to help mass transit, [[Page H 7591]] can you get us more subsidy?'' This is the best opportunity to help mass transit. I strongly urge Members, we have perfected it, we have dealt with the collective bargaining issue, we have made it clear that it will stay in effect. This is a good amendment for your constituents and for the country, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment, because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2, rule XXI. The rule states, in pertinent part, no amendment to a general appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law. The amendment imposes additional duties and modifies existing powers and duties. I ask for a ruling from the Chair. The amendment is clearly legislative in nature. The amendment amends the Budget Act of 1974 and creates a new mechanism for line-item veto not currently in existing law, provides a congressional procedure for expedited consideration of bills disapproving recommendations of the President, creates auditing reports by the GAO, and provides for special standing in the courts for judicial review.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the staff of the transportation appropriations subcommittee for their yeoman work over the past 7 months in putting this bill together. Starting early this year with the dozens of hearings we held, working long days and nights drafting the bill for the subcommittee markup, moving the legislation through the full committee and bringing the bill to the floor today, I salute John Blazey, Rich Efford, Stephanie Gupta, Linda Muir, and Deborah Frazier of the subcommittee staff as well as my associate staff member, Lori- Beth Feld Hua. In my first year as chairman of the subcommittee, these men and women have provided invaluable help as we have worked to develop a bill which is responsive to the transportation needs of America and the American taxpayers, and I am proud to be associated with them.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation. (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, the Military Airport Program is designed to convert for civilian use airfields on military bases which are closing, and to allow civilian use of current military airfields. The program is intended to focus on military airfields in congested areas, thereby opening up and adding needed capacity to the national aviation system, which it clearly needs. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the GAO report that the gentleman mentions, but under the new management the FAA is working to resolve the issue, and frankly, if they do not, then I will be inclined next year when the gentleman offers the amendment to, frankly, accept the amendment or to do something. However, until they are given that time, I think the amendment is wrong. Certainly with the Base Closure Commission continuing to close these facilities that are no longer needed, we should take advantage of the airfields that were built at Federal expense which could relieve airway congestion at the busier, larger airports. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to allocate the time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes, and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in support of the amendment. The gentleman from New York proposes a limitation on funds to proceed with construction of the Miller Highway in New York City. As I understand it, he claims that Donald Trump is seeking to use taxpayer funds to tear down and move a newly refurbished highway to enable him to build luxury housing on the west side of Manhattan. I think the amendment, as I understand it, represents good government and I support it.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WOLF. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. I rise in strong opposition to the Coleman amendment. Members ought to know that the 13(c) statute provides protection for transit workers for up to 6 years for full compensation and benefits. Everybody out there listening, do you get 6 years? That is what happens there. That is why the single parent is paying so much when she has to ride the transit. No other segment of the economy gets that. As a result of 13(c), transit districts cannot privatize their service. In fact, the cost to comply with section 13(c) is substantial. Let me give Members a few examples. Chicago Regional Transit Authority stated that it would privatize its operation but for 13(c). It estimates its savings could be as high as 25 to 40 percent. In fact, according to an independent study, privatization would save the Chicago Regional Transit Authority $96.1 million in 1996. That is a lot of money even for this Congress where we talk in terms of millions and billions. The Utah Transit Authority cannot use van pools in an area where there is already bus service, even though it would be more efficient. Indianapolis Public Transit Corporation estimates without the burdens of 13(c) it could save 25 to 35 percent in operating costs. If we could save 25 to 35 percent in operating costs around here to operate this place, we would do it. Opponents of section 13(c) suggest it is not necessary. They talk about this mythical reform. Here is what APTA says about this reform. It says, ``The proposal does not address APTA's concerns. The proposal would permit the issuing of conditional certifications, in apparent contravention of Federal case law. The proposal appears to institute a schedule for Department of Labor action but provides no meaningful relief to transit systems if the schedule is not met.'' In short, APTA says the ``proposed procedural changes have such significant loopholes as to render them meaningless.'' We have received letters from over 40 transit districts. I thank the transit districts because they are fighting for their riders as they should. While they fight for their riders, we have no obligation to fight here for them. The largest transit districts in the country, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, all support repeal. Citizens Against Government Waste supports repeal. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Coleman amendment. It does absolutely nothing and would just make fares go up even more. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], a member of the committee. (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], chairman of the authorizing committee.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen]. (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks.]

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

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 [[Page H 7588]] bill, H.R. 2002, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.