Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes and the time be equally divided.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If Members could just listen, because we are changing something that people have raised an issue on. Many Members are concerned about the reduction in transit funding, and I am concerned. We have tried to assist transit authorities faced with increased operating costs who have said that without some change in section 13(c), they will have no choice but to reduce service or increase fares. This perfecting amendment to anyone who has raised this issue is being offered to help address the concerns of some Members about the effect of repeal of 13(c) on transit workers' bargaining rights. I want to make clear that this perfecting amendment, under this amendment no rights existing under any Federal or existing State law will be affected. I urge Members to read the amendment. Let me read it. It says: The repeal made by this Section shall not abrogate any rights of mass transit employees to bargain collectively or otherwise negotiate or discuss terms and conditions of employment, as those rights exist under State or Federal law. It makes clear that collective bargaining rights are not repealed by the committee's action on 13(c). They are not repealed. Why is this amendment important? We have all heard from our local transit operators in support of 13(c) repeal. Who will be helped by our vote for this amendment? We will be helping senior citizens on fixed incomes use mass transit to visit the doctor. We will be helping school children in the inner city to take the subway or bus to school. We will be helping the working poor who own no care and whose only means of transportation is mass transit. This amendment will protect transit service for the single mom with two children on a limited income who relies on transit to get to work to provide for her family. By giving transit operators some flexibility to meet the cost of operating their systems, this amendment will also be helping to protect the jobs of transit workers because, without this amendment, more transit workers will lose their jobs. Without changes to 13(c), all of these people, our constituents, could be faced with paying higher fares or waiting longer for the bus because service has been reduced. Let me provide a real-life example. Over the last several years, the Committee on Appropriations has funded a demonstration program called Joblinks. The Joblinks Program provides transit services to welfare mothers to get to their jobs in hopes of getting them off welfare. The recipient in this case, Triangle Transit in North Carolina, after 6 months of delay and mounting cost of litigation caused by 13(c), withdrew the request for Federal funds. That means welfare parents in North Carolina will not be able to participate and get jobs, as Members in this body say they want them to. The results of 13(c) in this case actually harm the poor. Defeat the attempt to get the welfare mothers into the work force and off welfare. But the impacts of reductions in transit operator assistance can be lessened with repeal of 13(c). Nothing could be further from the truth that this amendment will help everyone. The amendment I send to the desk this afternoon is in large measure an amendment to clarify an issue that has become clouded in the 13(c) debate. Time and again, opponents of 13(c) have suggested section 343 of this bill will abrogate all existing rights, and it does not. I urge every Member who came here last night to talk about their concerns about 13(c) and about their transits and want more transits operating to vote for this. Before you vote, come over and look at all the transits in the country that support repealing 13(c). From Alabama, California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, the Regional Transportation Authority, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York, the New York City Department of Transportation, the New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Buffalo-Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority. It goes on and on and on. Frankly, frankly, if we do not repeal 13(c), then all of you who come and run around and talk about, I want more operating subsidy for my transit, you frankly will have been talking out of both sides. This is the way to help the transit people. This is the way to help the poor people in the inner city. This is the way to keep fares down whereby people can continue to ride. Repeal of 13(c) will not impact on existing employee bargaining rights. It would not impact on existing bargaining rights. Some people in North Carolina have spoken to me. It would not repeal the Taylor law in New York. It would not abrogate anything in Wisconsin. It would not change anything in Texas. The vast majority of the State have provided for public employees and transit workers to deal in collecting bargaining. Mr. Chairman, I close with this: As I made the comment last night, I opposed the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta] because he wanted to take the money out of the FAA. Last night as we were debating that issue, the computer in Chicago shut down. So we made the right decision there. But I have told them that they should go to the Senate and get the Senate to increase operating subsidies, and I will fight for more operating subsidies to help you in the inner city. But, my goodness, you want to go over to the Senate and fight for more [[Page H 7589]] operating subsidies and then here is the chance to give your transit the greatest opportunity going. To increase the operating subsidies over there will be like putting money, bad money after bad money. I urge Members, if they really care about mass transit, support this perfecting amendment which protects the bargaining rights but will also protect the people that drive and ride mass transit.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. We need to take a look at the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Continuing to reserve my point of order, Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, if Members want to know how to save money, read the letter from all the transits. Nobody in this body ought to vote until they read all of the transit letters. They have made it clear. This was not dreamed up in the minds of the majority, it was dreamed up in the minds of the transit. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].

Mr. WOLF. No, Mr. Chairman; I withdraw my point of order.

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

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentlewoman that the FAA's environmental and energy-related research has been hit hard in this bill. We had to make some very difficult choices, and this was one of them. The gentlewoman from Maryland has discussed her amendment with me. I would hope that if she would consider withdrawing her amendment, I will commit to her that I will attempt to find $1 to $1.5 million in additional funding for these research activities in conference with the Senate later this year. I am concerned that a proposed offset to terminal doppler weather radar, which is the big issue that we discussed on the Foglietta amendment, would undermine safety since it is a safety-related system and no one in the body wants to undermine safety. Therefore, I pledge to the gentlewoman that I will work with her to increase funding for this research in the conference.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Missouri is subject to a point of order as it violates clause 2, rule XXI of the House. The effect of the Danner amendment would be to set aside $26 million for transit assistance in contradiction to ISTEA. The authorizing legislation stipulates certain amounts derived by percentage of the total amount provided for transit formula grants are to be made available for urbanized areas, elderly, and the handicapped and rural transit assistance. Under ISTEA, 5.5 percent of the funds made available for transit formula grants are for rural transit assistance. The effect of the Danner amendment would be to provide $26 million solely for rural transit systems right off the top before any set- asides were derived. This amendment would thereby negate the discretion afforded the Secretary of the Department of Transportation under the authorizing legislation. Mr. Chairman, the Danner amendment amends, goes beyond, perfecting legislative provisos permitted to remain and constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill, and for this reason we raise the point of order.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order and will allow the gentlewoman an opportunity to discuss her amendment.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Coyne] for closing.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], a member of the committee.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], a member of the committee.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning]. (Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, none of these projects are new starts. None. There is not a new start in the projects. It is the name that has been given, and we should probably change the name. All of the projects here have been funded in the past after extensive hearings. Some of them are the very best in the country. Let me give you one example. The San Juan Tren Urbano project, the local government is paying two- thirds of the project and the cost effectiveness is $4, well below the $7 threshold recommended by the FDA. Another one involved here for Members from Texas is the Dallas project. The local match is 80 percent, if we could get local government to match 80 percent. So really, there are no new starts in the project. Every single project that will be cut has had a continued funding, some for many, many years. In fact there is one or two, this will be the last amount of money that they will get. The one with regard to, up in Chicago, the commuter rail, 14.4. This would be the last time they will get it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]. (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I would yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman].

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it does. It cuts the money here that the Secretary says he needs. It cuts the facilities and equipment accounts, it cuts safety, and if Members will recall the North Carolina situation in Charlotte where the airplane crashed because the terminal Doppler radar system in Charlotte was not there, it would deal with wind shear alert system and many of the things the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] said. In closing, we put in the report so Members could see, although I know very few people read these things, it said: In setting priorities for this bill, the committee has placed the strongest emphasis on maintaining and improving wherever possible transportation safety around the nation. Because of significant concerns over the past year regarding the state of aviation safety, the committee feels strongly that additional funding emphasis should be placed on new safety related equipment. Among other things, this equipment will provide controllers, pilots and airline dispatchers, a more accurate and up-to-date understanding of dangerous weather conditions and provide a clear picture and automated alerting of potential conflicts between aircraft maneuvering on airport surfaces. If you vote for the gentleman's amendment from Pennsylvania, you will be basically negating this page from the report, because it will be basically meaningless. We put money in for safety because safety is important. Quite frankly, you could probably abolish the Department of Transportation, if it were not for the safety role. This is a fundamental major safety issue, and I strongly urge my colleagues, whether you are for mass transit or against, it, and I happen to be for it, the way to solve it is not to take safety money from the FAA. So I strongly urge and plead on behalf of the flying public, a ``no'' vote on the Foglietta amendment.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition. The gentleman is right, I took the 36 trolley car and went downtown; and, to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews], I used to take the trolley car when I was a mailboy for Curtis Publishing Co. over to Campbell Soup. So I am a big fan of mass transit, but this is not the way to do what the gentleman is doing. Let me read from the hearings. In the hearings, this is what was said: Virtually all of the 2,300 radar displays in our en route center are over 23 years old. This is the Secretary of Transportation. We have more than 500 landing systems that are between 15 and 30 years old. We have close to 400 radars that are between 15 and 30 years old, all of the largest communications switches in our en route center. Then the Secretary goes on to say: All the largest communications switches in our en route centers are over 29 years old. In an age where generations of computer technology are measured in months, the FAA spends $7 million a year on vacuum tubes, a technology invented at the time of the Wright Brothers' first flight. This would be a mistake. In the hearings, the Secretary made it clear. Second, the minority Members, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], my good friend, signed the minority views, and this is what the minority said: Moreover, we believe that many important transportation technology and safety enhancing activities are cut too deeply in this bill. Now, you thought it was cut too deeply in the bill; now you want to cut it deeper. The minority said: We had hope for a better vision, bolder ideas and a more balanced approach to the critical transportation infrastructure and safety issues financed in the bill. Well, that is what we are doing. The gentleman is going the other way.

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