Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I was told we are doing limited one-minutes and then correction day earlier, and then after that, go to conference, and then after that, come back to the transportation bill.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], chairman of the authorizing committee.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, the amendment would gut the ICC's ability to shut down, and the ICC will be shutting down. It would be disruptive and bring about bigger RIF's quicker than they have to do it, and they are shutting down. The authorizing committee, who you will soon be hearing from, is drafting legislation that will sunset the ICC when it identifies which regulatory matters need to be considered, such as rail mergers. Lastly, the committee heard from a large number of groups the ICC currently regulates. They have all asked for sufficient funding to continue ICC functions, such as undercharge claims, rail abandonment, rail mergers, and captive shipping rates and strongly oppose the Hefley amendment to reduce by $3 billion. The ICC, though, with this bill, will shut down and will be seen never more. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment, and all amendments thereto, close in 10 minutes; 5 minutes for those favoring the amendment and 5 minutes for those opposing the amendment, 2\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member, Mr. Coleman, and 2\1/2\ minutes to myself.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]. Mr. Chairman, one-way toll collection on the Verrazona Bridge is necessary for a number of reasons. If this language were stricken as proposed, traffic from New York City to Staten Island would increase dramatically. Traffic in Staten Island would become more entangled as traffic emanating in New Jersey would cross the bridge into Staten Island. Ths system has been in place since fiscal year 1994 and has been included in each appropriation bill since that time. The issue has been debated time and again, and frankly nothing has changed to warrant the deletion of the language except for the fact that the language has been successful; therefore, there has been no change; therefore, there is no need to delete. Mr. Chairman, the system is proven to work and an environmental impact analysis has been conducted to support the one-way toll collection on this bridge. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment to strike the committee language. We have had it for a number of years. I strongly urge a no vote.

Mr. WOLF. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, that is fine. I take the word of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I have no objection, and if the gentleman says that it violates a point of order, I believe him and that is it. I concede it.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I guess the gentleman does think it says that, because I think the parliamentarian read it carefully. It is my understanding that this language will be carried in another provision some other time?

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], a member of the committee.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], the ranking member of the committee.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consumer. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment which would strike all funding for high-speed rail. Again, try to go back and think what did these men and women do in the committee? Well, the request was for $35 million. We knocked it down to $15 million, so we are not just starting with this as the beginning figure. Second, the committee scrubbed the Federal Railroad Administration's high-speed rail budget. The recommended funding for this program is 133 percent below the administration's request, 40 percent less than the 1995 enactment level. The program is designed to significantly improve, and I use the big S word, safety, if high-speed rail becomes a reality in the United States. Deleting all remaining funding for this program would be detrimental to a number of safety programs, such as removing highway rail grade crossing hazards, that the committee continued for funding albeit at a lower level. Programs funded in fiscal 1995 have just begun. However, the full benefits of these programs such as train control demonstrations in Michigan--is anybody from Michigan other than Mr. Smith opposed to it? I do not think so--and Illinois relies on fiscal year 1996 funding. Not providing further appropriations will effectively end these programs before there are any achievable benefits. This will basically throw away funding both States and the Federal Government have contributed, as well as the private investors. Other States such as Florida, California, Oregon, Washington, and New York have also invested in high-speed rail. This amendment fails to consider these investments. High-speed rail service could alleviate the need for additional highway and airport safety which are increasing in difficulty and expensive to build. We have not built a new airport for a long while, and the one we built in Denver I think has been a big mistake, and one frankly the Congress probably should have reversed. This program will make use of existing rail lines and does not require the expense of major new construction. Abolishing the program will add to the public cost of transportation as well as potentially increase traffic casualties. There was a ``Dear Colleague'' letter that went around with regard to this. Just to answer that, first, funding of the high-speed rail program for corridor development will not be used to lay new track. The three corridor programs under way, which will run between Detroit and Chicago, Chicago and St. Louis, and Portland and Seattle, will operate over existing rail lines and rights-of-ways. No money will be used to lay new track. Secondly, these corridors do not plan on operating at 150 miles per hour or higher. The trains will run at 110 and 125 miles per hour, which is significantly higher than the average 79 miles per hour that they currently operate. As such, the Government will not need to buy new land or lay new track to run at 150 miles per hour. Third, the private sector is already investing in these programs. For example, on the Portland to Seattle corridor, Burlington Northern and Union Pacific are solely financing the upgrading of safety and signaling technology along the corridor. This program will cost $20 million, and the Federal Government's role to evaluate and test will be $3 million. Fourth, State governments are participating in the development of these high-speed rail corridors. I would say that rail is important. The program has been cut dramatically from $35 million down to $15 million. I urge the Members to consider these points and vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] to zero out high-speed rail programs. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, but let me just say I do appreciate the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] mentioning something that has not been mentioned. The fact is, I am going to just take a second, this bill has no highway demo projects. Had the gentleman not mentioned it, I was not going to say it, and it maybe would not even have been mentioned. It used to be, and it is the old thing in politics, ``What have you done for me lately''; we took them out, and nobody mentioned it, and I thank the gentleman for mentioning it. Mr. Chairman, it is like what goes on in the Committee on Appropriations almost is irrelevant and does not count, and then we start when we come out with these bills. It used to be that we did not get a highway demo project unless someone was a certain powerful Member, or they did not get a project unless they served in a certain committee, or if they happened to be powerful and served in a certain committee and voted wrong, they did not get it. So I appreciate the gentleman mentioning that, Mr. Chairman, because this has been a fairly significant reform. We have to not only look at what we are doing on the floor, but what we did in the committee. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the gentleman's amendment, and I understand what he is doing, I rise in opposition. The amendment really, and this will be a revote, really seeks to reduce funds for transit new start projects by $93 million, eliminating 15 projects. The gentleman from Michigan suggested that these projects are new projects early in the planning and design phases of development. Mr. Chairman, all the projects proposed for deletion have received appropriations in the past. In addition, funds of each of the projects in the amendment are made subject to authorization. The authorizing committee will review these projects, just as the Committee on Appropriations has done, but in the context of the national highway systems bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Smith amendment, which deletes the following projects: Canton-Akron, Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky, DART, the Dallas North Rail, which is really an 80 percent local match, the Dallas Railtran, Los Angeles, San Diego, Memphis, New Orleans, Orange County, Sacramento, San Francisco BART, San Juan Treno Bano, Tampa-Whitehall, Wisconsin Central. We have already had a vote on a similar amendment, but it was defeated. Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this. I want to thank the gentleman again for what he is trying to do, and also for mentioning the fact there are no highway demos in this bill. As long as blood pumps through my heart, I will do everything to make sure that when the bill comes back from conference, that there are no highway demos in, so that the Senators do not put it in, because I think we have done a good thing by removing them. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman].

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I thank the gentleman from California and our other colleagues for bringing this important transportation investment program to the attention of the House. As the gentleman knows, the proposal to revitalize the loan guarantee program was not ready in time to be included in the committee markup. However, I can assure the gentleman that I am sensitive to the needs of our regional and short line rail lines. I will certainly consider funding the 511 loan guarantee program, if it is brought before a House-Senate conference.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I concur that these loan guarantees have proven to be reliable and can be a cost-effective and wise use of Federal transportation dollars.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I agree that this is a necessary and worthwhile project. I will encourage the FAA to consider funding it. We can have a meeting next week. Quite frankly, if they cannot take it out of this year, which I think they may actually be able to find the money from this year, certainly I see no reason why they could not take it out of next year. I would be glad to meet with them and with the gentlewoman.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, in the transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996, funding for the AIP has been increased by 10 percent, from 1.4 to 1.6 billion. The question is, how much does the airpark need to restructure the runway?

Mr. WOLF

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 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. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I will summarize very quickly. The transportation bill we bring to the floor is a good bill. It is balanced. I thank all the members of the committee, and I will not mention their names but they know who they are. Let me take a few minutes to summarize the bill. It is within the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation in domestic budget authority and outlays. In total, the bill provides $12.6 billion in budget authority and $36.9 billion in outlays. I would add at this point the budget authority is reduced from fiscal year 1995 levels by $1 billion, and it is fair and balanced. In order to meet the 602(b) allocation, we have to cut a number of programs. We set priorities. One was in the area of safety and, therefore, we made a special effort there. After safety, the committee's second priority was to provide continued investment in the Nation's highways and bridges and transit systems, Amtrak, and airports. The bill provides $18 billion for the Federal aid highway program, the highest level in the history of the Nation, and permits the expenditure of all 99 percent of the tax receipts collected by the highway trust fund this year. For the first time in countless years, the bill contains no special earmarked funds for highway demonstration projects. Rather, the committee has provided an increase of $840 million in the Federal aid highway program which will allow every State to receive additional funds for highway construction than they received. I would hope then the Governors of these States, since they are getting this extra money, will then take it and apply to it many of the projects that Members of the body were interested in. Aviation has been funded at $8.343 billion; within that amount is the airport improvement program at $1.6, an increase of 10 percent. The Coast Guard program has been helped at $3.653, and also the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], in the defense authorization has also granted us $44 million. Mr. Chairman, I am going to kind of just summarize and kind of end on that. There are a number of other things. One, we repealed section 13(c), which has driven up the cost of transit riders. That will be an issue we will talk about. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee brings to the floor today the fiscal year 1996 transportation appropriations bill. This bill has been crafted after a great deal of hard work and hearings and meetings with Members of the House and with the assistance and cooperation of all members of the subcommittee. We have consulted with the Department of Transportation and the administration as well as other interested parties. Where possible, the subcommittee has included provisions or language to address concerns expressed by these individuals. I want to thank our Members, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Regula, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Lightfoot, Mr. Packard, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Dickey, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Foglietta. Each Member and his staff has worked diligently and hard and the product is as much theirs as it is anyone's. Let me just take a few minutes to summarize the bill we bring before you today. The bill is within the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation in domestic budget authority and outlays. In total, the bill provides $12.6 billion in budget authority and $36.9 billion in outlays. I would add at this point that budget authority is reduced from fiscal year 1995 levels by $1.0 billion. And most importantly, this bill is fair and balanced. In order to meet the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation, the subcommittee had to set priorities, and our first priority was to protect programs and initiatives related to transportation safety. This is the primary reason for the Department of Transportation, and it is the Federal Government's responsibility in the transportation area. We must ensure that funding is available to promote and provide for safe transportation systems. This bill does just that. The committee's second priority was to provide continued investments in the Nation's highways, bridges, transit systems, Amtrak, and airports. The bill provides $18 billion for the Federal aid highway program, the highest level in the history of the Nation; and permits the expenditure of almost 99 percent of the tax receipts collected by the highway trust fund this year. The bill provides the full amount authorized for transit expenditures from the transit account of the highway trust fund, and the bill spends $90 million more than collected this year for aviation programs financed from the aviation trust fund. For the first time in countless years, the bill contains no special earmarked funds for highway demonstration projects. Rather, the committee has provided an increase of $840 million in the Federal aid highway program which will allow every State to receive additional funds for highway construction than they received last year. This decision represents less Federal intrusion in what should be State decisionmaking and provides a fairer process for the distribution of Federal dollars. The bill provides $3.653 billion for the Coast Guard which is to be supplemented by an additional $44 million that is included in the defense bill to fund defense-related Coast Guard activities. Aviation accounts are funded at $8.343 billion. Within that amount, the airport improvement program is funded at $1.6 billion, an increase of 10 percent. After a year where aviation fatalities were the highest in a decade, funds have been maintained or ever added for aviation security and safety-related systems. Funding for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is recommended at levels slightly above last year, recognizing the need for continued funding to address alcohol-impaired driving and occupant protection. Funding for Amtrak's capital program is funded at the level requested by the administration, $230 million, and operating expenses have been reduced by nearly $140 million. All appropriations for Amtrak are contingent upon authorizing legislation that reforms the National Rail Passenger Corporation. But, as I mentioned earlier, difficult choices had to be made and for each increase over last year, reductions in other areas had to found. Funding for operations of several important agencies and grants for Amtrak and transit operating assistance have been reduced in order to stretch our transportation dollars as far as possible. A number of programs have been eliminated, including local rail freight assistance, highway demonstration projects, Penn Station Redevelopment, and various smaller Coast Guard, FAA, and highway programs. The Interstate Commerce Commission is terminated on January 1, 1996. Fifteen million provided for essential air service through a new Federal-State-local partnership that requires a 50-50 match by the State or local entity. This level represents a reduction of 55 percent. Funding for administrative functions of the Department of Transportation have been reduced from last year's level in many cases. A reorganization of the Department's extensive field structure is directed, saving $25 million this year. And transit operating has been reduced from $710 million to $400 million, $100 million below what the administration requested. To mitigate these reductions, however, the bill contains two provisions that will allow transit agencies the flexibility to reduce their costs and accommodate reductions in Federal operating assistance without reducing services or increasing fares. First, the bill repeals section 13(C) of the Federal Transit Act. Many transit agencies have informed the committee that the labor protections provided under section 13(c) are costly, outdated, burdensome, and impede innovation, efficiency, and growth of transit services. Second, the bill includes language, requested by the administration, that permits bus overhauls to be funded from transit capital funds. The bill includes $29.9 million for pipeline safety, a reduction of $12.5 million below last year's level. This level is necessary not to compromise program operations or pipeline safety. And lastly, the bill contains a provision that prohibits training that personally offends or seeks to change the personal, religious values, or the lifestyle of an individual. This provision stems from extensive hearings that the committee conducted regarding training at the Department of Transportation. In summary, Mr. Chairman, this is a balanced bill, developed in a very difficult budget year. It provides for essential transportation needs of this country, it places a high priority on safety and trust fund financed programs and infrastructure investments. We have worked in a bipartisan fashion with the minority members of the subcommittee and throughout the Congress. I believe the bill deserves the committee's support, and I recommend it for approval. As usual, Mr. Chairman, the committee report accompanying the bill spells out in detail the funding recommendations. For additional information or specific funding levels, I would refer my colleagues to that document. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.