Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan]. (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say the ranking member in the committee talked a lot about aviation safety, and then all of a sudden he is not interested in it. This deals with a terminal weather doppler system that, if it had been in effect in Charlotte, NC, the people probably would still be alive, and the money he is talking about taking is the money in this bill. It is unobligated because the bill has not passed. Once the bill is passed, they will obligate it; that is he way the process goes. The FAA cannot obligate money until we pass it, and that is what we are doing today. We are trying to pass the bill. So my colleague was interested in the committee and talking about our cuts with regard to the FAA. We have made cuts, but my colleague wants deeper cuts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]. (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson]. (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. On page 66, Members ought to look, particularly Members from the Philadelphia area, Philadelphia National Airport, Airport movement areas safety system (AMASS).--Given this program's importance to aviation safety, the strong support of the National Transportation Safety Board, and recent calls for accelerated fielding by the FAA Safety Summit, the Committee recommendation includes an additional $20,000,000 for AMASS systems. The reommended level includes AMASS systems for airports in the following locations: Philadelphia, PA; Seattle, WA; Denver, CO (2 systems); Anchorage, AK; Miami, FL; Cleveland, OH; Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX; San Francisco, CA; Kansas City, MO; and Memphis, TN. People want to ride transit. They want to ride airplanes safely. It would be wrong to take aviation safety money out to do this. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]. (Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, the committee, on page 62, strongly, strongly talks in terms of safety. It says-- 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 clearer picture and automated alerting of potential conflicts between aircraft maneuvering on airport surfaces. This amendment would not be good for aviation safety. This amendment would allow many of these programs to be cut, and you could talk about helping mass transit, which is fine, but you do not want to do it by taking money away from aviation safety. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment. I think when people come over here to vote on this, they ought to think in terms of airline safety. There are major problems with this amendment. It takes away funds from ongoing projects approved by Congress and a need to revitalize the air traffic control system across the country. Every time Pena comes up here, they talk about the air traffic control system over and over and over. This would hurt that very, very badly. Any Member thinking in terms of flying has been concerned about it. It is one thing to rescind funds that are no longer needed for pork-barrel projects. It is another thing to disrupt needed, ongoing programs. That is exactly what the gentleman's amendment does. It cuts programs needed for radar and communications systems all across the country. The air traffic control system is falling apart. The bill before us today adds $90 million above, $90 million above the administration's request to put the system back in a good state of repair. The gentleman's amendment would allow the FAA to take most of the money we added in the bill for safety-related equipment away. Many of you know the disaster safety records we have seen over the past year in aviation. This has been one of the worst years in aviation. We need additional funding for safety systems, the terminal Doppler radar. You recall what happened down in Charlotte, the wind sheer alert system. So for that one reason alone, as many others, and I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] will cover it. I am strongly opposed to the amendment. The gentleman wanted to put more money into mass transit. We were sympathetic. Quite frankly, if you really want to help mass transit, when we have a vote tonight on 13(c), if you really want to help mass transit and lower the fares, you will also vote to eliminate the 13(c). This amendment is not the approach.

Mr. WOLF. I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, then I do not think that would be fair. I think we ought to go 20 and 20.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I asked if the gentleman opposed the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the author be given 10 minutes, 10 minutes for the ranking minority member and 10 minutes for the majority.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman opposed 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 for each side. I was thinking 20 minutes total. But if the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] would like, 15 minutes each side for a total of 30 minutes.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment ought to be defeated, because if Members remember how they voted last time, just 2 months ago, they voted to defeat the amendment then. Second, if we cannot do this, then frankly we have to fold up our tents and say we are never going to deal with our deficit, because this is a closure that is supported by the Coast Guard. It is also supported by the authorizing committee, which has looked into this. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] says the Secretary of Transportation's office has already been decimated. So as we vote, I think it is a good clear vote. The Coast Guard needs the flexibility. They oppose the amendment. It is opposed by the Coast Guard authorizing committee. It would destroy the whole deficit reduction program. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], the ranking member.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Its Members are listening, they should know that the House has already voted on this issue. It was soundly defeated 2 months ago by a vote of 272-146. The House has already expressed its will on this issue. I do not believe any significant new information has been received over the last 2 months to make a difference. If Members care about the deficit, the Coast Guard needs the flexibility to close the facilities they no longer need. They have determined that these stations are no longer needed. We should not be requiring the Coast Guard to keep open facilities they say they do not need and they do not want, especially in a time when we are cutting their budget and asking them to become more efficient. The amendment would result in a situation quite frankly unfair to Coast Guardsmen and their families. At some of the current units which the Coast Guard wants to close, Coast Guard staff are required to work more than 90 hours. It is kind of like being in the House of Representatives. Ninety hours a week these Coast Guardsmen are working. This jeopardizes the safety of those being rescued, and diminishes the quality of life of the Coast Guardsmen and their families. In addition, I say to the gentlemen on that side--and I do not know how many on this side care--the amendment would reduce the funding to the Office of the Secretary, which happens to be the Secretary of Transportation. In closing, Mr. Chairman, we have already made deep cuts in the Office of the Secretary. This bill would provide $215 million, which is 62 percent below the administration's request. Salaries and expenses are reduced by 12 percent. These are severe reductions and would be made even worse. The amendment is opposed again by the Coast Guard. It is opposed by the Secretary of Transportation. It is opposed by the chairman of the Coast Guard authorizing subcommittee. We have already voted against this issue overwhelmingly by a vote of 272-146. It will be interesting to see if anyone switches their vote. Mr. Chairman, because there have been no issues that have changed at all. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I am. And I am aware of the many commuter flights. Quite frankly, I know that it takes a lot of flights in there, that if it was not in operation, they would all go into National and create many, many noise problems. I am aware of the use of the Montgomery airport.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I asked unanimous consent that all debate on any amendments to title I and any amendments thereto be limited to 15 minutes each and that the time be equally divided, with the exception of any amendment offered by the Coast Guard, one for the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and that the Coast Guard amendment be limited to 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side. Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on any amendment to title I and any amendments thereto be limited to 15 minutes each, and that the time be equally divided, with the exception of any amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] to strike section 343 be limited to 40 minutes, equally divided between the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] and a Member opposed.

Mr. WOLF. Yes.

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 bill, H.R. 2002, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.